Lioma v S (A138/2020) [2025] ZAFSHC 111 (6 March 2025)

Lioma v S (A138/2020) [2025] ZAFSHC 111 (6 March 2025)

The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt on all counts. The evidence relied upon by the court a quo was largely circumstantial and did not exclude reasonable inferences consistent with innocence. The State did not call key witnesses from the Departmental Tender Committee or other relevant officials, and the evidence of Mr Moeng was found to be unreliable and contradictory. The appellant's role in the procurement process was limited to signing memoranda of agreement after provincial approval, and there was no credible evidence that he manipulated the process or unlawfully benefited from it. The convictions under section 5 of POCA...

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 111
Parties
Appellant: TNT Lioma; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2025
Case Number
A138/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted on all counts.
Judges
NM MBHELE, JP DAFFUE, PR CRONJE
Legal Topics
Accomplice Liability, Money Laundering, Public Procurement, Fair Trial Rights, Burden of Proof, Public Finance Management Act
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Accomplice Liability Money Laundering Public Procurement Fair Trial Rights Burden of Proof Public Finance Management Act

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TNT Lioma

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly convicted as an accomplice to fraud on counts 6 and 20.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was guilty of contravening section 5 of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA).
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was guilty of contravening section 38(1)(a)(iii) of the Public Finance Management Act 1 of 1999 (PFMA).

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt on all counts. The evidence relied upon by the court a quo was largely circumstantial and did not exclude reasonable inferences consistent with innocence. The State did not call key witnesses from the Departmental Tender Committee or other relevant officials, and the evidence of Mr Moeng was found to be unreliable and contradictory. The appellant's role in the procurement process was limited to signing memoranda of agreement after provincial approval, and there was no credible evidence that he manipulated the process or unlawfully benefited from it. The convictions under section 5 of POCA...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted on all counts.

Orders

  • The appeal against the convictions and sentence is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'Accused 1 is acquitted on all counts and discharged.'