Nakedi v S (A173/2016) [2018] ZAFSHC 36 (29 March 2018)

Nakedi v S (A173/2016) [2018] ZAFSHC 36 (29 March 2018)

The court found that although the trial court and prosecution were remiss in not seeking a ruling on the admissibility of hearsay and documentary evidence at the close of the State's case, this irregularity did not render the trial unfair when considering the totality of the evidence and the conduct of the defence. The appellant, represented by experienced counsel, did not dispute the authenticity of the documents or the hearsay evidence, and made a deliberate decision not to apply for discharge. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's guilt on counts of fraud and corruption, but the conviction under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act was not...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 36
Parties
Appellant: Lehlohonolo Motsoasele Percival Nakedi; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2018
Case Number
A173/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences From the Regional Court
Outcome
Appeal against convictions and sentences on counts 1 and 2 dismissed; convictions and sentences on counts 3 and 4 set aside and replaced with findings of not guilty.
Judges
S Naidoo, J P Daffue
Legal Topics
Fraud, Corruption Act, Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, Prevention of Organised Crime Act, Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence, Right to Fair Trial
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Fraud Corruption Act Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act Prevention of Organised Crime Act Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence +1 more

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 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lehlohonolo Motsoasele Percival Nakedi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences From the Regional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court committed irregularities in admitting hearsay and documentary evidence without proper application and ruling.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's right to a fair trial under section 35(3) of the Constitution was infringed.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions and sentences for fraud, corruption, and money laundering were supported by the evidence and law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the trial court and prosecution were remiss in not seeking a ruling on the admissibility of hearsay and documentary evidence at the close of the State's case, this irregularity did not render the trial unfair when considering the totality of the evidence and the conduct of the defence. The appellant, represented by experienced counsel, did not dispute the authenticity of the documents or the hearsay evidence, and made a deliberate decision not to apply for discharge. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt the appellant's guilt on counts of fraud and corruption, but the conviction under the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act was not...

Court Disposition

Appeal against convictions and sentences on counts 1 and 2 dismissed; convictions and sentences on counts 3 and 4 set aside and replaced with findings of not guilty.

Orders

  • The appeal against the convictions and sentences in respect of counts 1 and 2 is dismissed.
  • The conviction and sentence in respect of count 3 are set aside and replaced with a finding of not guilty.