Mokhanda and Another v S (A691/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 79 (14 February 2014)

Mokhanda and Another v S (A691/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 79 (14 February 2014)

The court found that the evidence of the single witness, Masuwa, was unreliable, contradictory, and not credible due to her excessive intoxication and lack of clarity on material aspects. Her testimony was not corroborated, and her account of the events was inconsistent and confusing. The alibi defences of the appellants were supported by other witnesses and could reasonably possibly be true. The trial court misdirected itself by relying solely on Masuwa's evidence and failing to give the appellants the benefit of the doubt. The requirements of section 208 of Act 51 of 1977 were not met, and the convictions could not be sustained.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 79
Parties
Appellant: Patrick Linda Mokhanda; Appellant: Tsietsi Johannes Mabasa; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2014
Case Number
A691/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeals against conviction upheld; convictions set aside; appellants found not guilty and discharged.
Judges
M J Teffo, S A M Baqwa
Legal Topics
Single Witness Evidence, Cautionary Rule, Murder, Alibi, Credibility of Witness
Criminal Law Single Witness Evidence Cautionary Rule Murder Alibi Credibility of Witness

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Linda Mokhanda

Appellant

Tsietsi Johannes Mabasa

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of the appellants for murder was justified on the evidence of a single witness.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of the single witness, who was intoxicated, was credible and reliable.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' alibi defences were reasonably possibly true.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence of the single witness, Masuwa, was unreliable, contradictory, and not credible due to her excessive intoxication and lack of clarity on material aspects. Her testimony was not corroborated, and her account of the events was inconsistent and confusing. The alibi defences of the appellants were supported by other witnesses and could reasonably possibly be true. The trial court misdirected itself by relying solely on Masuwa's evidence and failing to give the appellants the benefit of the doubt. The requirements of section 208 of Act 51 of 1977 were not met, and the convictions could not be sustained.

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction upheld; convictions set aside; appellants found not guilty and discharged.

Orders

  • The appeals against conviction of the appellants are upheld.
  • The convictions of the appellants by the court a quo are set aside and replaced with: 'The first and second appellants are found not guilty and discharged.'