Durban Magistrate's Court rejects theft conviction over drill borrowed and returned late

The Durban Magistrate's Court refused the State's request to convict Sibusiso Dlamini of stealing his employer's drill, finding that borrowing it and returning it late did not establish an intention to steal. It also declined to order a proposed payment of $300 for one night's use.

The dispute turned on the difference between taking a tool against its owner's wishes and taking it with dishonest intent. Although the court found an agreed return deadline had been missed, it concluded that the evidence did not prove the criminal charge.

Witness 1's admitted testimony established that Dlamini asked on Monday afternoon to use the drill at home that night and agreed to return it before opening on Tuesday. His acknowledgment of lateness and a Tuesday WhatsApp exchange supported the finding that he missed that deadline.

The exchange, timestamped 11:18, recorded Dlamini reporting that the drill was back on the owner's desk and apologising for being late. The owner's reply acknowledged receipt but objected to his taking it. These messages supported return, lateness and the owner's objection—not a finding about his intention when he took the drill.

Two potentially important pieces of material were absent. An earlier message Dlamini said he understood as permitting an overnight loan was not in evidence. Nor was the signed account the State said described the owner seeing him carry the drill out. The court treated neither as established evidence.

The borrowing request and promised return were consistent with an intention to bring the drill back. The court required reliable proof of dishonest intent rather than suspicion arising from unauthorised or late use. Dlamini did not have to prove permission or innocence to remedy a gap in the State's case.

The State relied on the borrowing arrangement, the late return and its assertion about the owner's signed account. It sought a theft conviction and also proposed payment for one night's use.

Dlamini acknowledged that returning the drill late was wrong but argued that a missed deadline did not prove theft. He relied on the Tuesday messages as evidence of return and apology, while accepting that they did not establish permission and that the earlier message was unavailable.

The State alleged that Dlamini took his employer's drill without permission and returned it only after a warning that he would be reported. Dlamini maintained that he believed the owner had agreed to an overnight loan.

No settlement was established. The judgment found no proven loss, established currency or basis for ordering the proposed payment in the criminal matter. An offer to pay for use was not an admission of theft.

The order resolves only the theft charge and requested payment on this record. It does not determine any separate civil claim.