Mayekiso and Another v S (CA&R 77/2011) [2012] ZAECGHC 28 (3 May 2012)

Mayekiso and Another v S (CA&R 77/2011) [2012] ZAECGHC 28 (3 May 2012)

The court found that the evidence of the state was fraught with contradictions and improbabilities, particularly regarding the observations of the spotters and the circumstances of the alleged theft. The possibility that the spotters were motivated by the prospect of a reward undermined their credibility. The court held that the magistrate erred in admitting the pointing out evidence by the second appellant due to procedural irregularities and lack of confirmation of the statement. The appellants’ version that they were on the farm to look for swadi was found to be reasonably possibly true, and the state failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction and...

Citation
[2012] ZAECGHC 28
Parties
Appellant: Sivuyile Mayekiso; Appellant: Thanduxolo Singeni; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2012
Case Number
CA&R 77/2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave Granted on Petition
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside for both appellants.
Judges
N G Beshe, P W Tshiki
Legal Topics
Theft, Attempted Theft, Admissibility of Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses, Onus of Proof, Appeal Principles
Criminal Law Theft Attempted Theft Admissibility of Evidence Credibility of Witnesses Onus of Proof Appeal Principles

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sivuyile Mayekiso

Appellant

Thanduxolo Singeni

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence After Leave Granted on Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in accepting the evidence of the state and rejecting the appellants' version.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence relating to the pointing out by the second appellant was admissible.
  3. 3 Whether the state proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence of the state was fraught with contradictions and improbabilities, particularly regarding the observations of the spotters and the circumstances of the alleged theft. The possibility that the spotters were motivated by the prospect of a reward undermined their credibility. The court held that the magistrate erred in admitting the pointing out evidence by the second appellant due to procedural irregularities and lack of confirmation of the statement. The appellants’ version that they were on the farm to look for swadi was found to be reasonably possibly true, and the state failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the conviction and...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside for both appellants.

Orders

  • The appeal in respect of both appellants is allowed.
  • The conviction and sentence in respect of both appellants is set aside.