Nkosi and Another v S (A233/16) [2020] ZAFSHC 98 (7 May 2020)

Nkosi and Another v S (A233/16) [2020] ZAFSHC 98 (7 May 2020)

The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove the identity of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt and did not establish the necessary chain of evidence from the discovery of the body to the post-mortem. The admissions made by the first appellant were not confessions and were insufficient to sustain a conviction. There was no evidence linking the deceased to the motor vehicle allegedly robbed, nor any nexus between the vehicle and the deceased. The State's case was not strong enough to require the appellants to present a defence, and no negative inference could be drawn from their silence. Consequently, the convictions and sentences on both counts were set aside.

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 98
Parties
Appellant: Makamo Paulus Nkosi; Appellant: Samuel Mpele; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 May 2020
Case Number
A233/16
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Van Zyl, Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Confessions, Chain of Evidence, Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Onus of Proof, Extra Judicial Admissions
Criminal Law Admissibility of Confessions Chain of Evidence Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Onus of Proof Extra Judicial Admissions

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

Parties

Makamo Paulus Nkosi

Appellant

Samuel Mpele

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State proved the identity of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the chain of evidence regarding the body was established.
  3. 3 Whether the admissions and alleged confessions were admissible and sufficient for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove the identity of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt and did not establish the necessary chain of evidence from the discovery of the body to the post-mortem. The admissions made by the first appellant were not confessions and were insufficient to sustain a conviction. There was no evidence linking the deceased to the motor vehicle allegedly robbed, nor any nexus between the vehicle and the deceased. The State's case was not strong enough to require the appellants to present a defence, and no negative inference could be drawn from their silence. Consequently, the convictions and sentences on both counts were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The convictions and sentences of both appellants are set aside.