Morojelle and Others v S (A68/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 152 (11 September 2014)

Morojelle and Others v S (A68/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 152 (11 September 2014)

The convictions of the appellants were based on inadmissible evidence, including the unsworn testimony of the section 204 witness and admissions by co-accused, which cannot be used against others. The identification evidence was unreliable and did not prove the involvement of accused 2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt. There was no evidence establishing that any of the appellants had the necessary mens rea for receiving stolen property or the physical and mental control required for possession of firearms and ammunition. The state failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on all counts. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences of all three appellants must be set aside.

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 152
Parties
Appellant: Mphethi Morojelle; Appellant: Nepher Mahlathini; Appellant: Mario Khoza; Respondent: State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2014
Case Number
A68/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences of all three appellants set aside.
Judges
Kruger, Mbhele
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Admissibility of Admissions, Mens Rea, Possession of Firearms, Accessory After the Fact
Criminal Law Identification Evidence Admissibility of Admissions Mens Rea Possession of Firearms Accessory After the Fact

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

Parties

Mphethi Morojelle

Appellant

Nepher Mahlathini

Appellant

Mario Khoza

Appellant

State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of accused 1 for receiving stolen property was justified.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions of accused 2 and 3 for robbery were supported by admissible evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions of accused 2 and 3 for possession of firearms and ammunition were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions of the appellants were based on inadmissible evidence, including the unsworn testimony of the section 204 witness and admissions by co-accused, which cannot be used against others. The identification evidence was unreliable and did not prove the involvement of accused 2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubt. There was no evidence establishing that any of the appellants had the necessary mens rea for receiving stolen property or the physical and mental control required for possession of firearms and ammunition. The state failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on all counts. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences of all three appellants must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences of all three appellants set aside.

Orders

  • The appeals of the three appellants against all their convictions and sentences succeed.
  • The convictions and sentences of all three appellants are set aside.