Nkosi and Another v S (411/10) [2011] ZASCA 83; 2011 (2) SACR 482 (SCA) (27 May 2011)

Nkosi and Another v S (411/10) [2011] ZASCA 83; 2011 (2) SACR 482 (SCA) (27 May 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence at the close of the state case upon which the first appellant could reasonably be convicted. The trial court erred in refusing to entertain his application for discharge and improperly exercised its discretion, thereby denying him a fair trial. The evidence did not warrant his conviction, and his convictions and sentences were set aside. In contrast, the second appellant was apprehended at the scene, wounded and in close proximity to the gangsters' vehicle. His explanation for his presence was found to be improbable and not credible. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that he was a participant in the attempted...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 83
Parties
Appellant: James Nkosi; Appellant: Zweli Albert Mthethwa; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2011
Case Number
411/10
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
The first appellant's appeal succeeds; his convictions and sentences are set aside. The second appellant's appeal is dismissed.
Judges
Ponnan, Maya, Petse
Legal Topics
Criminal Procedure Act, Discharge at Close of State Case, Attempted Robbery, Minimum Sentencing, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Act Discharge at Close of State Case Attempted Robbery Minimum Sentencing Credibility of Witnesses

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

Parties

James Nkosi

Appellant

Zweli Albert Mthethwa

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants ought to have been discharged at the close of the state case under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions and sentences imposed on the appellants were appropriate.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence established the involvement of the first appellant in the offences.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence at the close of the state case upon which the first appellant could reasonably be convicted. The trial court erred in refusing to entertain his application for discharge and improperly exercised its discretion, thereby denying him a fair trial. The evidence did not warrant his conviction, and his convictions and sentences were set aside. In contrast, the second appellant was apprehended at the scene, wounded and in close proximity to the gangsters' vehicle. His explanation for his presence was found to be improbable and not credible. The evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that he was a participant in the attempted...

Court Disposition

The first appellant's appeal succeeds; his convictions and sentences are set aside. The second appellant's appeal is dismissed.

Orders

  • The first appellant's convictions and sentences are set aside.
  • The second appellant's appeal is dismissed; his convictions and sentences stand.