Man who planned fatal jewellery heist loses appeal despite never entering store

A man who helped organise a deadly jewellery store robbery in which the owner was shot and killed has failed to overturn his convictions, despite never setting foot inside the business when the crime was committed.

The Western Cape High Court has dismissed Ndyebo Dotwana’s appeal against his convictions for two counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances, and murder, finding that he played an integral role in planning and facilitating the January 2021 robbery at Munnik Jewellers in Worcester.

In a judgment delivered on November 3, 2026, a full bench comprising Judges DM Thulare, T Ndita and JD Lekhuleni found that the evidence established that Dotwana acted in common purpose with the armed men who stormed the store, robbed it and killed its owner, Charl Munnik.

Dotwana was sentenced to an effective 25 years’ imprisonment following his conviction in the trial court. Although he was not captured on the store’s surveillance footage, the court found that his involvement before and after the robbery was sufficient to establish his criminal liability.

How the deadly robbery unfolded

The robbery took place on January 29, 2021, when four armed men entered Munnik Jewellers. One of the suspects, Sicelo Mase, initially approached the counter under the pretence of enquiring about watch repairs. He then pulled out a firearm and threatened the staff.

Three other men, including Luyanda Lonzi and Awonke Ziqu, subsequently joined the robbery. Munnik emerged from a side door leading to his residence above the shop and opened fire on the armed suspects.

The robbers returned fire. Lonzi then approached Munnik from the side, pointed a firearm at his head and shot him. Munnik collapsed and later died from a single gunshot wound to the head.

Surveillance footage captured Lonzi picking up the deceased’s Glock pistol before fleeing with the other suspects. The four men escaped in a blue Honda Jazz belonging to Malibhekho Makaqayi, who later became a state witness under section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Getaway vehicle linked Dotwana to the crime

Makaqayi’s testimony proved central to the state’s case against Dotwana. The court heard that Dotwana had borrowed the Honda from Makaqayi the day before the robbery, leaving his Hyundai H1 in exchange.

According to Makaqayi, Dotwana initially told him he would return the vehicle the following day. However, on the morning of the robbery, he allegedly asked to continue using it.

When Makaqayi later visited Dotwana’s home, he found four unfamiliar men changing the Honda’s registration plates. He also noticed a silver-grey Volkswagen Polo parked at the property.

Makaqayi testified that Dotwana prevented him from taking back his vehicle, saying he still needed it. When he returned later, he found the men replacing the registration plates again.

Dotwana allegedly told him that the Honda had been involved in a robbery in town after he had given it to the men. He also instructed Makaqayi to remove and discard the vehicle’s wheel caps, warning that police could identify the car through them.

The court further heard that Dotwana threatened to have Makaqayi and his family killed if he disclosed what he had been told. The Honda was subsequently identified as the getaway vehicle captured on the jewellery store’s surveillance footage.

Investigators also established that the suspects had travelled from Khayelitsha to Worcester in a silver-grey Volkswagen Polo belonging to Ziqu. When Ziqu and Mase were arrested, the firearm stolen from Munnik during the robbery was discovered hidden in the vehicle’s air vent.

ALSO READ: Randburg family ordered to vacate home after five-year legal battle

Apart from the vehicle evidence, cellphone records helped establish the connection between Dotwana and Lonzi shortly before and after the robbery.

The records showed that Lonzi called Dotwana twice at approximately 8.56am and 8.59am, about 38 and 35 minutes before the robbery began. The attack started at 9.34am, with the suspects fleeing approximately six minutes later.

Lonzi subsequently contacted Dotwana repeatedly, including at 9.50am, shortly after the robbery. The court found that the timing and frequency of the communication, considered alongside the arrangements involving the getaway vehicle and the events at Dotwana’s home, supported the conclusion that the two had been involved in a prior agreement to commit the crimes.

Dotwana denied any involvement, maintaining that Lonzi had visited him to discuss a car wash business and disputed Makaqayi’s account of the events. He also denied that the Polo had been at his home or that he had participated in changing the Honda’s registration plates.

However, Judge Thulare found Makaqayi’s evidence reliable and corroborated by independent evidence, including cellphone records and Dotwana’s own admissions.

“The evidence of MM was consistent and clear in his account of the events. The evidence is reliable and trustworthy, and, therefore, satisfactory in all material respects,” the judgment reads.

The full court also considered contradictions between Dotwana’s bail application and his evidence during the trial. During his bail application, Dotwana had testified that he was with Makaqayi on the morning of the robbery and that they had travelled together to drop off workers.

However, when he testified during the trial, he changed his version, claiming that he had been alone when transporting his staff. The court rejected his suggestion that Makaqayi had falsely implicated him.

It found that the state witness’s account was supported by other evidence and that Dotwana’s version did not reasonably account for the circumstances surrounding the robbery.

A central issue in the appeal was the legal principle of common purpose, which allows a person to be held criminally liable for crimes committed by others when they intentionally associate themselves with a joint criminal enterprise.

Judge Thulare found that Dotwana had secured the getaway vehicle, provided a place where it could be prepared before the robbery and assisted the perpetrators in concealing evidence afterwards.

The court further found that Dotwana foresaw the possibility that someone could be killed during the armed robbery but nevertheless associated himself with the criminal operation.

“The cumulative effect of all the proven facts was so strong that the appellant could not break it,” Thulare said.

**ALSO READ: **Western Cape High Court dismisses EFF’s urgent bid to halt fuel levy increase

Subscribe To Our Newsletter