Machaba and Another v S (20401/2014) [2015] ZASCA 60; [2015] 2 All SA 552 (SCA) ; 2016 (1) SACR 1 (SCA) (8 April 2015)

Machaba and Another v S (20401/2014) [2015] ZASCA 60; [2015] 2 All SA 552 (SCA) ; 2016 (1) SACR 1 (SCA) (8 April 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the incomplete record did not prejudice the appellants, as the available evidence was sufficient for proper adjudication. The court found no indication that the administration of the oath was improper, as the record did not show that the presiding judge failed to administer it. Extra-curial statements by co-accused were inadmissible against the second appellant, and the conviction was based on other evidence, including possession of the murder weapon and uncontested facts. The court concluded that the State had proved the guilt of both appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding sentence, the prescribed minimum sentencing regime was not applicable...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 60
Parties
Appellant: Bushi Mike Machaba; Appellant: Elvis Boy Mbuyane; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 April 2015
Case Number
20401/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against convictions dismissed; appeal against sentences upheld.
Judges
Mpati, Majiedt, Schoeman
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Hearsay, Administration of Oath, Extra Curial Statements, Common Purpose, Sentencing Regime, Minimum Sentences
Criminal Law Admissibility of Hearsay Administration of Oath Extra Curial Statements Common Purpose Sentencing Regime Minimum Sentences

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bushi Mike Machaba

Appellant

Elvis Boy Mbuyane

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the incomplete record prejudices the appellants' right to a fair appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the administration of the oath to witnesses complied with section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
  3. 3 Whether extra-curial statements by co-accused are admissible against other accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the incomplete record did not prejudice the appellants, as the available evidence was sufficient for proper adjudication. The court found no indication that the administration of the oath was improper, as the record did not show that the presiding judge failed to administer it. Extra-curial statements by co-accused were inadmissible against the second appellant, and the conviction was based on other evidence, including possession of the murder weapon and uncontested facts. The court concluded that the State had proved the guilt of both appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding sentence, the prescribed minimum sentencing regime was not applicable...

Court Disposition

Appeal against convictions dismissed; appeal against sentences upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal against the convictions of the appellants is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the sentences imposed on the appellants is upheld and the sentences are set aside and substituted with 20 years' imprisonment for murder and 10 years' imprisonment for robbery with aggravating circumstances.