Molapisi and Another v S (A642/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 976 (28 November 2016)

Molapisi and Another v S (A642/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 976 (28 November 2016)

The court found that the first appellant's exculpatory version was unsatisfactory and not reasonably possibly true, given the circumstances and his conduct. The evidence established that he knowingly participated in the theft by assisting in removing the stolen television sets concealed in a bicycle box. The conviction of the first appellant was therefore upheld. However, the second appellant's version was not inherently improbable or palpably false, and there was no direct evidence linking him to the theft beyond his presence in the bicycle section. The absence of corroborating evidence and the reasonable possibility of innocence led the court to uphold the second appellant's appeal and...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 976
Parties
Appellant: Simon Serante Molapisi; Appellant: Johannes Docky Moshodi; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 2016
Case Number
A642/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the District Court, Vereeniging
Outcome
First appellant's appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence upheld with sentence partially suspended. Second appellant's appeal against conviction and sentence upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
N Davis, C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Theft, Evidence of Co Accused, Onus of Proof, Sentencing of First Offenders
Criminal Law Theft Evidence of Co Accused Onus of Proof Sentencing of First Offenders

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Serante Molapisi

Appellant

Johannes Docky Moshodi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the District Court, Vereeniging

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions of both appellants for theft were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the exculpatory versions of the appellants were reasonably possibly true.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed on the first appellant was appropriate given his status as a first offender.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first appellant's exculpatory version was unsatisfactory and not reasonably possibly true, given the circumstances and his conduct. The evidence established that he knowingly participated in the theft by assisting in removing the stolen television sets concealed in a bicycle box. The conviction of the first appellant was therefore upheld. However, the second appellant's version was not inherently improbable or palpably false, and there was no direct evidence linking him to the theft beyond his presence in the bicycle section. The absence of corroborating evidence and the reasonable possibility of innocence led the court to uphold the second appellant's appeal and...

Court Disposition

First appellant's appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence upheld with sentence partially suspended. Second appellant's appeal against conviction and sentence upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The first appellant's appeal against conviction is dismissed.
  • The first appellant's appeal against sentence is upheld; the sentence is altered to 3 years imprisonment, of which 2 years are suspended for 5 years on condition that he is not found guilty of theft during the suspension period.