Khanye and Another v S (CCT86/16) [2017] ZACC 29; 2017 (11) BCLR 1399 (CC); 2017 (2) SACR 630 (CC) (10 August 2017)

Khanye and Another v S (CCT86/16) [2017] ZACC 29; 2017 (11) BCLR 1399 (CC); 2017 (2) SACR 630 (CC) (10 August 2017)

The Constitutional Court held that extra-curial statements made by an accused are inadmissible against a co-accused, reaffirming the common law position and the interpretation of section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The only evidence against the applicants consisted of such inadmissible statements. The remaining evidence, including the pointing out of the deceased's house by Mr Khanye and the alibi of Mr Moyo, was insufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the applicants' convictions and sentences were not supported by admissible evidence and must be set aside. The applicants were ordered to be released immediately.

Citation
[2017] ZACC 29
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Sampie Khanye; Applicant: Victor Zandile Moyo; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2017
Case Number
CCT 86/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Reasons for Order Following Grant of Leave to Appeal and Setting Aside of Convictions
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside; applicants ordered to be released immediately.
Judges
Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Mojapelo, Pretorius, Zondo
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Extra Curial Admissions, Common Purpose, Criminal Procedure Act, Right to Fair Trial
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Admissibility of Evidence Extra Curial Admissions Common Purpose Criminal Procedure Act Right to Fair Trial

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Sampie Khanye

Applicant

Victor Zandile Moyo

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Reasons for Order Following Grant of Leave to Appeal and Setting Aside of Convictions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are extra-curial admissions by an accused admissible against a co-accused in criminal proceedings?
  2. 2 Was there sufficient admissible evidence to warrant the convictions of the applicants for murder, robbery, and possession of firearms and ammunition?
  3. 3 Should the convictions and sentences of the applicants be set aside in light of the inadmissibility of extra-curial statements?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that extra-curial statements made by an accused are inadmissible against a co-accused, reaffirming the common law position and the interpretation of section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The only evidence against the applicants consisted of such inadmissible statements. The remaining evidence, including the pointing out of the deceased's house by Mr Khanye and the alibi of Mr Moyo, was insufficient to establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found that the applicants' convictions and sentences were not supported by admissible evidence and must be set aside. The applicants were ordered to be released immediately.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside; applicants ordered to be released immediately.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.