Mhlongo and Another v S (A273/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 257 (19 September 2019)

Mhlongo and Another v S (A273/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 257 (19 September 2019)

The court found that the identification evidence against the second appellant was unreliable due to significant contradictions and confusion among the State witnesses, compounded by the traumatic circumstances under which the identifications were made. The only distinguishing feature was the second appellant's light complexion, which was not a reliable method of identification. The second appellant's alibi was credible and corroborated. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence against the second appellant were set aside. Regarding the first appellant, the court held that the offences arose from the same criminal conduct and that the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed was...

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 257
Parties
Appellant: Mandla Mhlongo; Appellant: Oupa Shadrack Sithole; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2019
Case Number
A273/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The appeal of the first appellant against sentence is upheld to the extent that the sentences are to run concurrently, resulting in an effective term of 25 years imprisonment. The appeal of the second appellant against conviction and sentence is upheld; his conviction and sentence are set aside.
Judges
L.B.J. Moeng, S. Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Minimum Sentencing, Alibi Defence, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Firearms Control Act, Cumulative Sentencing
Criminal Law Identification Evidence Minimum Sentencing Alibi Defence Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Firearms Control Act Cumulative Sentencing

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandla Mhlongo

Appellant

Oupa Shadrack Sithole

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identification evidence against the second appellant was reliable beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the second appellant's alibi defence.
  3. 3 Whether the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed on the first appellant was unjustifiably severe.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the identification evidence against the second appellant was unreliable due to significant contradictions and confusion among the State witnesses, compounded by the traumatic circumstances under which the identifications were made. The only distinguishing feature was the second appellant's light complexion, which was not a reliable method of identification. The second appellant's alibi was credible and corroborated. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence against the second appellant were set aside. Regarding the first appellant, the court held that the offences arose from the same criminal conduct and that the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed was...

Court Disposition

The appeal of the first appellant against sentence is upheld to the extent that the sentences are to run concurrently, resulting in an effective term of 25 years imprisonment. The appeal of the second appellant against conviction and sentence is upheld; his conviction and sentence are set aside.

Orders

  • The first appellant's appeal against sentence is upheld to the extent that the sentences imposed on counts three, four, and five are to run concurrent with the sentences imposed on counts one and two.
  • A further five years imprisonment imposed on count two is to run concurrent with the sentence imposed on count one.