Desaleigh and Another v S (A111 /2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 93 (1 April 2021)

Desaleigh and Another v S (A111 /2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 93 (1 April 2021)

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly assessed the evidence and credibility of the witnesses. The contradictions between the state witnesses were immaterial and did not affect the reliability of their evidence. The appellants’ versions were inherently improbable and rightly rejected. The trial court’s findings were supported by the manner in which the events unfolded and the appellants’ conduct. The sentencing was appropriate, considering the seriousness of the offence, the prescribed minimum sentence, and the substantial and compelling circumstances found by the trial court. There was no just cause to interfere with the convictions or sentences.

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 93
Parties
Appellant: Binam Desaleigh; Appellant: Malefetsane Setlaba; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2021
Case Number
A111 /2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.
Judges
Mbhele, Daffue, O'Brien
Legal Topics
Possession of Unlicensed Firearm, Minimum Sentencing, Credibility of Witnesses, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Possession of Unlicensed Firearm Minimum Sentencing Credibility of Witnesses Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Binam Desaleigh

Appellant

Malefetsane Setlaba

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding that the state proved its case beyond reasonable doubt despite contradictions in the state’s evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court correctly rejected the appellants’ versions as improbable.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in finding all elements of the offence were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly assessed the evidence and credibility of the witnesses. The contradictions between the state witnesses were immaterial and did not affect the reliability of their evidence. The appellants’ versions were inherently improbable and rightly rejected. The trial court’s findings were supported by the manner in which the events unfolded and the appellants’ conduct. The sentencing was appropriate, considering the seriousness of the offence, the prescribed minimum sentence, and the substantial and compelling circumstances found by the trial court. There was no just cause to interfere with the convictions or sentences.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeals of both appellants against their convictions and sentences are dismissed.
  • The convictions and sentences are confirmed.