Mkhwanazi and Another v S (Appeal) (AR504/2018) [2023] ZAKZPHC 162 (22 September 2023)

Mkhwanazi and Another v S (Appeal) (AR504/2018) [2023] ZAKZPHC 162 (22 September 2023)

The appeal court found that the trial court committed several material misdirections in its evaluation of the evidence, particularly in accepting the unreliable and contradictory testimony of Thamsanqwe, who admitted to lying and being intoxicated during the incident. The evidence established that the deceased and Thamsanqwe were the aggressors, armed and attacking the first appellant, who was unarmed and acted in self-defence. The first appellant's version was corroborated by Siyanda and consistent with medical evidence. There was no credible evidence that the first appellant continued the assault after the threat had ended, nor that the second appellant assaulted the deceased. The trial...

Citation
[2023] ZAKZPHC 162
Parties
Appellant: Vusimuzi Mkhwanazi; Appellant: Nomvula Rejoice Nyembe; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2023
Case Number
AR504/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Regional Court, Ladysmith
Outcome
Appeals upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Henriques, Seegobin
Legal Topics
Private Defence, Murder, Attempted Murder, Common Assault, Criminal Procedure, Appellate Review
Criminal Law Private Defence Murder Attempted Murder Common Assault Criminal Procedure Appellate Review

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vusimuzi Mkhwanazi

Appellant

Nomvula Rejoice Nyembe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence in the Regional Court, Ladysmith

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first appellant acted in self-defence when assaulting the deceased and Thamsanqwe, and if so, whether he is entitled to an acquittal.
  2. 2 If the bounds of self-defence were exceeded, whether the conviction and sentence were correct and whether a competent verdict should have been entered.
  3. 3 Whether the second appellant assaulted the deceased by placing a foot on his chest and whether her conviction for common assault was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court committed several material misdirections in its evaluation of the evidence, particularly in accepting the unreliable and contradictory testimony of Thamsanqwe, who admitted to lying and being intoxicated during the incident. The evidence established that the deceased and Thamsanqwe were the aggressors, armed and attacking the first appellant, who was unarmed and acted in self-defence. The first appellant's version was corroborated by Siyanda and consistent with medical evidence. There was no credible evidence that the first appellant continued the assault after the threat had ended, nor that the second appellant assaulted the deceased. The trial...

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The first and second appellants’ appeals against their convictions and sentences are upheld.
  • The convictions and sentences are set aside.