Manzini and Others v S (A114/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 236 (26 February 2016)

Manzini and Others v S (A114/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 236 (26 February 2016)

The appellate court found that the trial magistrate misdirected himself by incorrectly applying the law to the facts and by failing to properly assess the medical evidence regarding the timing of the complainant's injury. The independent expert medical opinion indicated that the injury leading to the removal of the right testicle was sustained on 25 April 2009, not during the incident on 29 April 2009 for which the appellants were charged. The evidence presented by the appellants was reasonably possibly true and not riddled with contradictions justifying rejection as false beyond reasonable doubt. The State failed to discharge its onus of proof. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 236
Parties
Appellant: Egypt Thomas Manzini; Appellant: Johannes Thomas Motau; Appellant: Jurry Heroldt Mashego; Appellant: Vusimuzi Petrus Maphanga; Appellant: Lehlabanda Given Mahloko; Appellant: Vuma Ernest Mgwambe; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2016
Case Number
A114/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Regional Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence succeeds; convictions and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted.
Judges
E Swartz, M J Teffo
Legal Topics
Assault With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm, Common Purpose, Onus of Proof, Police Misconduct, Appeal Standard, Sentence Interference
Criminal Law Assault With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm Common Purpose Onus of Proof Police Misconduct Appeal Standard Sentence Interference

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Egypt Thomas Manzini

Appellant

Johannes Thomas Motau

Appellant

Jurry Heroldt Mashego

Appellant

Vusimuzi Petrus Maphanga

Appellant

Lehlabanda Given Mahloko

Appellant

Vuma Ernest Mgwambe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Regional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the injury leading to the removal of the complainant's right testicle was sustained on 25 or 29 April 2009.
  2. 2 Whether all appellants were guilty of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm through common purpose, active participation, legal duty, or as accessories after the fact.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court misdirected itself on the law and facts, justifying appellate interference with the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial magistrate misdirected himself by incorrectly applying the law to the facts and by failing to properly assess the medical evidence regarding the timing of the complainant's injury. The independent expert medical opinion indicated that the injury leading to the removal of the right testicle was sustained on 25 April 2009, not during the incident on 29 April 2009 for which the appellants were charged. The evidence presented by the appellants was reasonably possibly true and not riddled with contradictions justifying rejection as false beyond reasonable doubt. The State failed to discharge its onus of proof. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence succeeds; convictions and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction and sentence by appellants 1 to 6 succeeds.
  • The order of the trial court is set aside and replaced with the following order: The accused are found not guilty and discharged.