Makwakwa and Others v S (A294/10) [2011] ZAFSHC 27 (11 February 2011)

Makwakwa and Others v S (A294/10) [2011] ZAFSHC 27 (11 February 2011)

The court held that the requirement under section 10(1) and (2) of the Extradition Act is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but sufficient admissible and reliable evidence to warrant prosecution in the requesting State. The certificate from the Director of Public Prosecutions of Lesotho, stating a prima facie case, substantially complies with the Act and is conclusive proof of sufficient evidence. The magistrate was not required to conduct a trial within a trial or to determine the guilt of the appellants, nor was he required to fully adjudicate credibility at this stage. The evidence, including identification by witnesses and the circumstances of arrest, was overwhelming and sufficient...

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 27
Parties
Appellant: Alberto Makwakwa; Appellant: Angelo Mondlani; Appellant: Mangani Malenge; Appellant: Abel Nhatsave; Appellant: George Thomas; Appellant: Francisco Alberto Mandlate; Appellant: Rocky Antony Masinga; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 February 2011
Case Number
A294/10
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Order Committing Appellants for Extradition
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Van der Merwe, CJ Musi
Legal Topics
Extradition Act, Prima Facie Evidence, Sufficient Evidence Standard, Extradition Treaty, Burden of Proof, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Public International Law Extradition Act Prima Facie Evidence Sufficient Evidence Standard Extradition Treaty Burden of Proof +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alberto Makwakwa

Appellant

Angelo Mondlani

Appellant

Mangani Malenge

Appellant

Abel Nhatsave

Appellant

George Thomas

Appellant

Francisco Alberto Mandlate

Appellant

Rocky Antony Masinga

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Magistrate's Order Committing Appellants for Extradition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate correctly found that there was sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution for extradition purposes.
  2. 2 Whether a certificate stating a prima facie case satisfies the requirements of section 10(2) of the Extradition Act.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate erred in admitting certain evidence and in evaluating the credibility of witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the requirement under section 10(1) and (2) of the Extradition Act is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but sufficient admissible and reliable evidence to warrant prosecution in the requesting State. The certificate from the Director of Public Prosecutions of Lesotho, stating a prima facie case, substantially complies with the Act and is conclusive proof of sufficient evidence. The magistrate was not required to conduct a trial within a trial or to determine the guilt of the appellants, nor was he required to fully adjudicate credibility at this stage. The evidence, including identification by witnesses and the circumstances of arrest, was overwhelming and sufficient...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.