Maqhula v S (508/18) [2019] ZASCA 54 (1 April 2019)

Maqhula v S (508/18) [2019] ZASCA 54 (1 April 2019)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the evidence presented against the appellant was contradictory and not supported by objective medical findings. The complainant's statements to the police and his testimony in court were inconsistent regarding the location of the alleged injuries. The magistrate had noted that both the complainant and his mother were unimpressive witnesses and had exaggerated the injuries. The medical evidence did not corroborate the complainant's claim that hot water was poured on his genitals, as no such injuries were recorded. Given these contradictions and the lack of medical support, the court held that there was a reasonable prospect that another court might...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 54
Parties
Appellant: Mamela Maqhula; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2019
Case Number
508/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Appeal by High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; leave to appeal against conviction granted.
Judges
Majiedt, Mathopo, Mocumie, Makgoka, Mokgohloa
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Contradictory Evidence, Medical Evidence, Common Assault
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospects of Success Contradictory Evidence Medical Evidence Common Assault

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mamela Maqhula

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Leave to Appeal by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal against conviction should have been granted by the High Court.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success in the intended appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence supports the conviction for common assault.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the evidence presented against the appellant was contradictory and not supported by objective medical findings. The complainant's statements to the police and his testimony in court were inconsistent regarding the location of the alleged injuries. The magistrate had noted that both the complainant and his mother were unimpressive witnesses and had exaggerated the injuries. The medical evidence did not corroborate the complainant's claim that hot water was poured on his genitals, as no such injuries were recorded. Given these contradictions and the lack of medical support, the court held that there was a reasonable prospect that another court might...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; leave to appeal against conviction granted.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Grahamstown refusing leave to appeal is set aside.