Managa and Others v S (118/13) [2013] ZASCA 121 (20 September 2013)

Managa and Others v S (118/13) [2013] ZASCA 121 (20 September 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the State's evidence was wholly insufficient to sustain the convictions. The identification evidence was unreliable, as witnesses failed to positively identify the appellants as the perpetrators of the offences. The statements and pointing out relied upon by the State were not shown to have been made voluntarily and were admitted in breach of procedural safeguards. The trial court erred in admitting such evidence and in convicting the appellants on the basis thereof. The procedural irregularities and lack of reliable evidence rendered the convictions unsafe. Accordingly, the appeal was upheld and the convictions and sentences set aside.

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 121
Parties
Appellant: Kevin Ndivhuwo Managa; Appellant: Godfrey Mathebula; Appellant: Rodney Netshisaulu; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2013
Case Number
118/13
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Ponnan, Malan, Tshiqi, Petse, Zondi
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Identification Evidence, Voluntariness of Statements, Irregularities in Trial
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Identification Evidence Voluntariness of Statements Irregularities in Trial

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Ndivhuwo Managa

Appellant

Godfrey Mathebula

Appellant

Rodney Netshisaulu

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence adduced by the State was sufficient to sustain the convictions of the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the identification evidence was reliable and admissible.
  3. 3 Whether the statements and pointing out by the appellants were made voluntarily and properly admitted.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the State's evidence was wholly insufficient to sustain the convictions. The identification evidence was unreliable, as witnesses failed to positively identify the appellants as the perpetrators of the offences. The statements and pointing out relied upon by the State were not shown to have been made voluntarily and were admitted in breach of procedural safeguards. The trial court erred in admitting such evidence and in convicting the appellants on the basis thereof. The procedural irregularities and lack of reliable evidence rendered the convictions unsafe. Accordingly, the appeal was upheld and the convictions and sentences set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal of all three appellants is upheld.
  • The convictions and sentences imposed on each appellant are set aside.