Myohlakale and Others v S (A133/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 58 (10 May 2018)

Myohlakale and Others v S (A133/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 58 (10 May 2018)

The appellate court found that the trial court erred in treating the appellants' defences as bare denials, as each appellant provided a detailed and plausible account of their movements and involvement. The inability of the appellants to provide a reason for false incrimination did not constitute a proper ground for rejecting their versions or convicting them. The evidence of the complainants was inconsistent and, in the case of the attempted murder victim, affected by amnesia without medical corroboration. The court held that the appellants' versions were reasonably possibly true and that the State failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the convictions and...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 58
Parties
Appellant: SS Myohlakale; Appellant: KN Phatsoane; Appellant: XL Bokoloshe; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2018
Case Number
A133/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Regional Court
Outcome
Appeals upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Lekale, Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Public Violence, Attempted Murder, Assault With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm, Credibility of Witnesses, Reasonable Doubt, Dock Identification
Criminal Law Public Violence Attempted Murder Assault With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm Credibility of Witnesses Reasonable Doubt Dock Identification

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SS Myohlakale

Appellant

KN Phatsoane

Appellant

XL Bokoloshe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Regional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State proved the guilt of each appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the appellants' versions as bare denials.
  3. 3 Whether the inability of the accused to provide a reason for false incrimination is sufficient to sustain a conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found that the trial court erred in treating the appellants' defences as bare denials, as each appellant provided a detailed and plausible account of their movements and involvement. The inability of the appellants to provide a reason for false incrimination did not constitute a proper ground for rejecting their versions or convicting them. The evidence of the complainants was inconsistent and, in the case of the attempted murder victim, affected by amnesia without medical corroboration. The court held that the appellants' versions were reasonably possibly true and that the State failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the convictions and...

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeals succeed.
  • The convictions and sentences are set aside.