Mojapelo and Another v S (574/2014) [2016] ZASCA 22 (8 March 2016)

Mojapelo and Another v S (574/2014) [2016] ZASCA 22 (8 March 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in accepting the uncorroborated and unreliable evidence of the accomplice, Mr Malwane, to convict the appellants of murder. The trial court itself found Mr Malwane to be untruthful and his evidence to be bizarre and nonsensical, yet relied on parts of his testimony to convict the appellants. The appellate court held that there was no credible or reliable evidence linking the appellants to the murder, and the alleged utterances by the first appellant did not constitute corroborative evidence implicating her in the crime. The absence of corroboration and the flawed nature of the accomplice's evidence meant that the State failed to...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 22
Parties
Appellant: Tinky Sophie Mojapelo; Appellant: Antoinette Nkhensani Masuku; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 March 2016
Case Number
574/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, Sitting as a Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Lewis, Tshiqi, Petse, Willis, Saldulker
Legal Topics
Accomplice Evidence, Murder, Burden of Proof, Corroboration, Criminal Procedure Act, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Accomplice Evidence Murder Burden of Proof Corroboration Criminal Procedure Act 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tinky Sophie Mojapelo

Appellant

Antoinette Nkhensani Masuku

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, Sitting as a Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants were guilty of murder where the only evidence was that of an accomplice whose testimony was found to be untruthful and uncorroborated.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court correctly accepted the evidence of the accomplice witness, Mr Malwane, as sufficient to convict the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged utterances by the first appellant constituted corroborative evidence implicating her in the murder.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in accepting the uncorroborated and unreliable evidence of the accomplice, Mr Malwane, to convict the appellants of murder. The trial court itself found Mr Malwane to be untruthful and his evidence to be bizarre and nonsensical, yet relied on parts of his testimony to convict the appellants. The appellate court held that there was no credible or reliable evidence linking the appellants to the murder, and the alleged utterances by the first appellant did not constitute corroborative evidence implicating her in the crime. The absence of corroboration and the flawed nature of the accomplice's evidence meant that the State failed to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The convictions and sentences of both appellants are set aside.