Mabaso v S (677/2020) [2021] ZASCA 98 (9 July 2021)

Mabaso v S (677/2020) [2021] ZASCA 98 (9 July 2021)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the only evidence implicating the appellant in the murder was contained in confessions and previous inconsistent statements by a hostile witness, which are inadmissible against a co-accused. The high court misdirected itself by admitting these statements as substantive evidence against the appellant. There was no other admissible evidence directly implicating the appellant in the murder. The evidence of the accomplice, Mr Mvubu, was riddled with contradictions and lacked reliability. The appellant's conviction was therefore improper and had to be set aside.

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 98
Parties
Appellant: Theresa Fortunate Mabaso; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 July 2021
Case Number
677/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction for murder set aside; appellant acquitted.
Judges
Mbha, Mbatha, Carelse, Phatshoane, Mabindla-Boqwana
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Hostile Witness, Accomplice Evidence, Fair Trial Rights, Hearsay Rule
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confessions Hostile Witness Accomplice Evidence Fair Trial Rights Hearsay Rule

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theresa Fortunate Mabaso

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confession and previous inconsistent statements by a hostile witness are admissible as evidence against the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient admissible evidence to convict the appellant of murder.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant received a fair trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the only evidence implicating the appellant in the murder was contained in confessions and previous inconsistent statements by a hostile witness, which are inadmissible against a co-accused. The high court misdirected itself by admitting these statements as substantive evidence against the appellant. There was no other admissible evidence directly implicating the appellant in the murder. The evidence of the accomplice, Mr Mvubu, was riddled with contradictions and lacked reliability. The appellant's conviction was therefore improper and had to be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction for murder set aside; appellant acquitted.

Orders

  • The appellant’s application for condonation for the late filing of her notice to appeal is granted.
  • The respondent’s application for condonation for the late filing of the respondent’s heads of argument is granted.