Faku and Another v S (CA&R 205/2013) [2014] ZAECGHC 56 (3 July 2014)

Faku and Another v S (CA&R 205/2013) [2014] ZAECGHC 56 (3 July 2014)

The appeal was dismissed because the trial court's refusal to admit the two reports as exhibits was correct, given their lack of proper proof and unknown authorship. The trial court's decision not to subpoena the investigating officer under section 186 of the Criminal Procedure Act was a proper exercise of discretion, as his evidence would have been hearsay and not essential to a just decision. The trial court's credibility findings regarding the police witnesses were justified, and the appellants' versions were not reasonably possibly true. The factual errors made by the magistrate were not material to the outcome, and the assessment of probabilities and credibility was sound....

Citation
[2014] ZAECGHC 56
Parties
Appellant: Lisa Faku; Appellant: Loyiso Ngendi; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 July 2014
Case Number
CA&R 205/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Leave Granted on Petition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
G Goosen, G Bloem
Legal Topics
Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Credibility of Witnesses, Section 186 Criminal Procedure Act, Admissibility of Evidence, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Credibility of Witnesses Section 186 Criminal Procedure Act Admissibility of Evidence 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lisa Faku

Appellant

Loyiso Ngendi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Leave Granted on Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit two reports as exhibits.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court misdirected itself by refusing to subpoena the investigating officer under section 186 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court's credibility findings and rejection of the appellants' versions were justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial court's refusal to admit the two reports as exhibits was correct, given their lack of proper proof and unknown authorship. The trial court's decision not to subpoena the investigating officer under section 186 of the Criminal Procedure Act was a proper exercise of discretion, as his evidence would have been hearsay and not essential to a just decision. The trial court's credibility findings regarding the police witnesses were justified, and the appellants' versions were not reasonably possibly true. The factual errors made by the magistrate were not material to the outcome, and the assessment of probabilities and credibility was sound....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.