Libazi v S (424/09) [2010] ZASCA 91; 2010 (2) SACR 233 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 246 (SCA) (1 June 2010)

Libazi v S (424/09) [2010] ZASCA 91; 2010 (2) SACR 233 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 246 (SCA) (1 June 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the extra-curial statement by Shasha, a co-accused, was not admissible as hearsay evidence against the appellants. The court reasoned that admitting such a statement would undermine the appellants' constitutional right to challenge evidence and would not satisfy the cautionary requirements applicable to accomplice evidence, especially as Shasha did not testify and could not be cross-examined. The evidence led by Mbulawa, while credible, did not establish a specific agreement to commit murder, and thus the conviction for conspiracy to commit murder could not stand. However, the identification evidence by state witnesses regarding the attempted murder...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 91
Parties
Appellant: Andile William Libazi; Appellant: Mabhuti Mbayimbayi; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2010
Case Number
424/09
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence on conspiracy count upheld; convictions and sentences on attempted murder counts confirmed; sentences for attempted murder to run concurrently.
Judges
Mthiyane, Mlambo, Shongwe
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, Attempted Murder, Common Purpose, Admissibility of Statements, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Conspiracy to Commit Murder Attempted Murder Common Purpose Admissibility of Statements Fair Trial Rights

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andile William Libazi

Appellant

Mabhuti Mbayimbayi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extra-curial statement by a co-accused (Shasha) was admissible as hearsay evidence against the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions for conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder were sustainable on the evidence presented.
  3. 3 Whether the identification evidence by state witnesses was reliable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the extra-curial statement by Shasha, a co-accused, was not admissible as hearsay evidence against the appellants. The court reasoned that admitting such a statement would undermine the appellants' constitutional right to challenge evidence and would not satisfy the cautionary requirements applicable to accomplice evidence, especially as Shasha did not testify and could not be cross-examined. The evidence led by Mbulawa, while credible, did not establish a specific agreement to commit murder, and thus the conviction for conspiracy to commit murder could not stand. However, the identification evidence by state witnesses regarding the attempted murder...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence on conspiracy count upheld; convictions and sentences on attempted murder counts confirmed; sentences for attempted murder to run concurrently.

Orders

  • The appellants' convictions and sentences on count two (conspiracy to commit murder) are set aside.
  • The first appellant's appeal against convictions on counts three, four and six is dismissed.