Matsekane and Another v S (A115/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 674 (18 October 2021)

Matsekane and Another v S (A115/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 674 (18 October 2021)

The court found that the confession made by the second appellant was properly admitted after a trial-within-a-trial established its voluntariness. The identity of both appellants was confirmed through admissions, identification parades, and corroborating evidence. The conduct of both appellants demonstrated a common purpose in the commission of the offences, as evidenced by their coordinated actions during the murder, robberies, rape, and kidnapping. The first appellant's denial of involvement in the murder was contradicted by his active participation immediately after the shooting and throughout the criminal events. The trial was found to be fair, and no irregularity or defect resulted...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 674
Parties
Appellant: Kenneth Matsekane; Appellant: Daniel Thekiso; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2021
Case Number
A115/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Only
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Nyathi, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Common Purpose, Admissibility of Confession, Rape, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Murder, Kidnapping
Criminal Law Common Purpose Admissibility of Confession Rape Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Murder Kidnapping

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Matsekane

Appellant

Daniel Thekiso

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the confession made by the second appellant was admissible.
  2. 2 Whether the identity of the appellants was sufficiently established.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants acted with common purpose in committing the offences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the confession made by the second appellant was properly admitted after a trial-within-a-trial established its voluntariness. The identity of both appellants was confirmed through admissions, identification parades, and corroborating evidence. The conduct of both appellants demonstrated a common purpose in the commission of the offences, as evidenced by their coordinated actions during the murder, robberies, rape, and kidnapping. The first appellant's denial of involvement in the murder was contradicted by his active participation immediately after the shooting and throughout the criminal events. The trial was found to be fair, and no irregularity or defect resulted...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction by both appellants is dismissed.