Mkhatshwa v S (A69/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 502 (6 December 2013)

Mkhatshwa v S (A69/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 502 (6 December 2013)

The court found that the evidence of the single witness in count 1 was corroborated by common cause facts and the appellant's own conduct, justifying the conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft. In respect of count 2, the appellant's explanation was reasonably possibly true and not inherently far-fetched, but his conduct nonetheless constituted a contravention of section 1(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956, which is a competent verdict to theft. The sentence for count 1 was upheld, while the sentence for count 2 was wholly suspended for five years on condition that the appellant is not convicted of theft or any competent verdict during the suspension period.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 502
Parties
Appellant: Vusimusi Frans Mkhatshwa; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2013
Case Number
A69/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence on count 1 dismissed; appeal against conviction on count 2 upheld and substituted with contravention of section 1(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956; sentence on count 2 wholly suspended for five years on condition of no further conviction for theft or competent...
Judges
T.M. Makgoka, K Manamela
Legal Topics
Housebreaking With Intent to Steal, Theft, Single Witness Evidence, Competent Verdict, Sentencing Discretion
Criminal Law Housebreaking With Intent to Steal Theft Single Witness Evidence Competent Verdict Sentencing Discretion

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

Parties

Vusimusi Frans Mkhatshwa

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction on count 1 (housebreaking with intent to steal and theft).
  2. 2 Whether the conviction on count 2 (theft) was supported by the evidence or should be substituted with a competent verdict under section 1(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate and whether the appeal court should interfere.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence of the single witness in count 1 was corroborated by common cause facts and the appellant's own conduct, justifying the conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft. In respect of count 2, the appellant's explanation was reasonably possibly true and not inherently far-fetched, but his conduct nonetheless constituted a contravention of section 1(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956, which is a competent verdict to theft. The sentence for count 1 was upheld, while the sentence for count 2 was wholly suspended for five years on condition that the appellant is not convicted of theft or any competent verdict during the suspension period.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence on count 1 dismissed; appeal against conviction on count 2 upheld and substituted with contravention of section 1(1) of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956; sentence on count 2 wholly suspended for five years on condition of no further conviction for theft or competent...

Orders

  • The appeal against the conviction in respect of count 1 (housebreaking with intent to steal and theft) is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the conviction in respect of count 2 (theft) is upheld. The conviction is set aside and replaced with a conviction for contravening section 1(1) of the General Law Amendment Act, 50 of 1956.