Nkosi and Another v S (A144/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 73 (6 March 2025)

Nkosi and Another v S (A144/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 73 (6 March 2025)

The appeal court found that the trial court had properly analysed and evaluated the evidence, including the testimony of Mr Mapisa and corroborating independent witnesses. Cellular data supported the state’s version regarding the movements of the appellants and their connection to the crime scene. The warning statements made by the appellants placed them at the scene and corroborated the sequence of events as described by the complainants. The trial court’s credibility findings were justified, and no misdirection or irregularity was found. The grounds of appeal lacked merit, and the convictions were confirmed.

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 73
Parties
Appellant: Lucky Nkosi; Appellant: Lucky Khumalo; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2025
Case Number
A144/2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal against convictions dismissed; convictions confirmed.
Judges
Naidoo, Ntanga
Legal Topics
Attempted Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Circumstantial Evidence, Single Witness Rule, Credibility Findings
Criminal Law Attempted Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Circumstantial Evidence Single Witness Rule Credibility Findings

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucky Nkosi

Appellant

Lucky Khumalo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in accepting the state’s version and rejecting the appellants’ evidence as not reasonably possibly true.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court failed to properly analyse or evaluate the evidence and consider improbabilities in the state’s version.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of the single witness, Mr Mapisa, was sufficiently corroborated.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court had properly analysed and evaluated the evidence, including the testimony of Mr Mapisa and corroborating independent witnesses. Cellular data supported the state’s version regarding the movements of the appellants and their connection to the crime scene. The warning statements made by the appellants placed them at the scene and corroborated the sequence of events as described by the complainants. The trial court’s credibility findings were justified, and no misdirection or irregularity was found. The grounds of appeal lacked merit, and the convictions were confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal against convictions dismissed; convictions confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal against the convictions is dismissed.
  • The convictions imposed on the appellants are confirmed.