Makhetha v S (A279/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 107 (14 May 2015)

Makhetha v S (A279/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 107 (14 May 2015)

The appeal succeeded because the trial court failed to properly evaluate the contradictions and improbabilities in the State's evidence and did not adequately consider the appellant's consistent version of events. The absence of direct evidence and the lack of sufficient facta probanda meant that the only reasonable inference was not that the appellant intentionally killed the deceased. The State did not discharge its onus to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant's version could reasonably be true. Therefore, the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 107
Parties
Appellant: Phillip Rantsolo Makhetha; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 May 2015
Case Number
A279/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
Mocumie, Ebrahim
Legal Topics
Murder, Self Defence, Circumstantial Evidence, Onus of Proof, Appeal Review
Criminal Law Murder Self Defence Circumstantial Evidence Onus of Proof Appeal Review

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Rantsolo Makhetha

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of murder in the absence of direct evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant acted in self-defence or intentionally killed the deceased.
  3. 3 Whether the State proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the trial court failed to properly evaluate the contradictions and improbabilities in the State's evidence and did not adequately consider the appellant's consistent version of events. The absence of direct evidence and the lack of sufficient facta probanda meant that the only reasonable inference was not that the appellant intentionally killed the deceased. The State did not discharge its onus to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant's version could reasonably be true. Therefore, the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'The appellant’s conviction and the sentence imposed are set aside.'