Mulala v S (074/2014) [2014] ZASCA 103 (29 August 2014)

Mulala v S (074/2014) [2014] ZASCA 103 (29 August 2014)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the requirements for admitting further evidence on appeal were satisfied. The appellant's blood test, conducted after conviction, showed he was not infected with herpes simplex virus type 2, the disease found in the complainant. This evidence was highly relevant to the issue of identification, as the complainant's infection was used to corroborate her account of rape. The court held that the interests of justice required the admission of this evidence, as it was not manufactured and its chain of custody was sufficiently reliable. The medical evidence established that herpes 2 is lifelong and cannot be cured, so the appellant could not have infected...

Citation
[2014] ZASCA 103
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Mfula Mulula; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 August 2014
Case Number
074/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence; Application to Lead Further Evidence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentence set aside.
Judges
Brand, Bosielo, Zondi, Fourie, Mathopo
Legal Topics
Rape, Identification Evidence, Admission of Further Evidence, Herpes Simplex Virus, Chain of Custody, Interests of Justice
Criminal Law Rape Identification Evidence Admission of Further Evidence Herpes Simplex Virus Chain of Custody Interests of Justice

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Mfula Mulula

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence; Application to Lead Further Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be permitted to introduce further evidence on appeal regarding his medical status.
  2. 2 Whether the new evidence is materially relevant to the outcome of the trial.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions and sentence should be set aside in light of the new evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the requirements for admitting further evidence on appeal were satisfied. The appellant's blood test, conducted after conviction, showed he was not infected with herpes simplex virus type 2, the disease found in the complainant. This evidence was highly relevant to the issue of identification, as the complainant's infection was used to corroborate her account of rape. The court held that the interests of justice required the admission of this evidence, as it was not manufactured and its chain of custody was sufficiently reliable. The medical evidence established that herpes 2 is lifelong and cannot be cured, so the appellant could not have infected...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The application for the hearing of further evidence on appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.