Litako and Others v S (584/2013) [2014] ZASCA 54; [2014] 3 All SA 138 (SCA); 2014 (2) SACR 431 (SCA); 2015 (3) SA 287 (SCA) (16 April 2014)

Litako and Others v S (584/2013) [2014] ZASCA 54; [2014] 3 All SA 138 (SCA); 2014 (2) SACR 431 (SCA); 2015 (3) SA 287 (SCA) (16 April 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the extra-curial admission made by the first appellant was inadmissible against his co-accused. The court reaffirmed the common law and statutory position that such statements are only admissible against their maker and not against others, regardless of whether they are characterised as admissions or confessions. The court found that the trial court erred in admitting the statement under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as this provision does not override the exclusionary rule established by section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act and the common law. The remaining evidence, including eyewitness and ballistics evidence, was...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 54
Parties
Appellant: Moses Moshe Litako; Appellant: Thabo Mbaola; Appellant: Philemon Gumede; Appellant: Greaterman Morongwa Mathlare; Appellant: Ndabuko Docus Simamane; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 April 2014
Case Number
584/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the North West High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Navsa, Ponnan, Leach, Petse, Swain
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay Rule, Extra Curial Admissions, Common Purpose, Fair Trial Rights, Law of Evidence Amendment Act
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Rule Extra Curial Admissions Common Purpose Fair Trial Rights Law of Evidence Amendment 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moses Moshe Litako

Appellant

Thabo Mbaola

Appellant

Philemon Gumede

Appellant

Greaterman Morongwa Mathlare

Appellant

Ndabuko Docus Simamane

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the North West High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extra-curial admission by one accused is admissible against co-accused in criminal proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions and sentences of the appellants can be sustained based on the extra-curial statement of the first appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in admitting the statement of the first appellant against the other accused under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the extra-curial admission made by the first appellant was inadmissible against his co-accused. The court reaffirmed the common law and statutory position that such statements are only admissible against their maker and not against others, regardless of whether they are characterised as admissions or confessions. The court found that the trial court erred in admitting the statement under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as this provision does not override the exclusionary rule established by section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act and the common law. The remaining evidence, including eyewitness and ballistics evidence, was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The convictions and sentences of the appellants are set aside.