Mkhwanazi and Others v S (AR185/18) [2019] ZAKZPHC 26 (10 May 2019)

Mkhwanazi and Others v S (AR185/18) [2019] ZAKZPHC 26 (10 May 2019)

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly applied the cautionary rule to the evidence of a single witness, Ndlovu, whose testimony was corroborated by other evidence, including that of Mgenge, the third appellant, and the post-mortem report. The contradictions between witnesses regarding whether the deceased entered the vehicle voluntarily were not material to the central issue of whether the appellants participated in the murder. The trial court properly evaluated the credibility of all witnesses and rejected the appellants' versions as false beyond reasonable doubt. The sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the appellants'...

Citation
[2019] ZAKZPHC 26
Parties
Appellant: Khulekani Sizwe Mkhwanazi; Appellant: Lucky Bonginkosi Mkwana; Appellant: Bhekisisa Mehlo Z Manqele; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2019
Case Number
AR 185/18
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.
Judges
Masipa, K Pillay
Legal Topics
Murder, Common Purpose, Single Witness Caution, Sentencing Discretion, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Murder Common Purpose Single Witness Caution Sentencing Discretion Credibility of Witnesses

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

Parties

Khulekani Sizwe Mkhwanazi

Appellant

Lucky Bonginkosi Mkwana

Appellant

Bhekisisa Mehlo Z Manqele

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellants of murder based on the evidence of a single witness.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court correctly applied the cautionary rule to the evidence of a single witness.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences of life imprisonment imposed on the appellants were appropriate given the circumstances and mitigating factors.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly applied the cautionary rule to the evidence of a single witness, Ndlovu, whose testimony was corroborated by other evidence, including that of Mgenge, the third appellant, and the post-mortem report. The contradictions between witnesses regarding whether the deceased entered the vehicle voluntarily were not material to the central issue of whether the appellants participated in the murder. The trial court properly evaluated the credibility of all witnesses and rejected the appellants' versions as false beyond reasonable doubt. The sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence, the appellants'...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed; convictions and sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction and sentence fails.
  • The convictions and sentences of the appellants by the court a quo are confirmed.