Nndwambi v S (168/2018) [2018] ZASCA 99 (14 June 2018)

Nndwambi v S (168/2018) [2018] ZASCA 99 (14 June 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conviction of the appellant was unlawful because it was based solely on an extra-curial admission made by a co-accused, which is inadmissible against other accused persons. The court relied on the precedent set in S v Litako, confirming that such admissions compromise the constitutional right to a fair trial and cannot be used to prove guilt. The State conceded this point, and no other evidence was presented to link the appellant to the offences. The court granted condonation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal, reinstated the appeal, and set aside the convictions and sentences. The appellant was found not guilty and ordered to be released...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 99
Parties
Appellant: Ntshavheni Samuel Nndwambi; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 June 2018
Case Number
168/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside; appellant found not guilty and ordered to be released immediately.
Judges
Lewis, Saldulker, Mothle
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Extracurial Admissions, Hearsay Evidence, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Extracurial Admissions Hearsay Evidence Fair Trial Rights

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

Ntshavheni Samuel Nndwambi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extra-curial admission made by a co-accused is admissible against other co-accused.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction of the appellant based solely on the extra-curial admission of a co-accused was lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's right to a fair trial was infringed by the admission of such evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conviction of the appellant was unlawful because it was based solely on an extra-curial admission made by a co-accused, which is inadmissible against other accused persons. The court relied on the precedent set in S v Litako, confirming that such admissions compromise the constitutional right to a fair trial and cannot be used to prove guilt. The State conceded this point, and no other evidence was presented to link the appellant to the offences. The court granted condonation for the delay in prosecuting the appeal, reinstated the appeal, and set aside the convictions and sentences. The appellant was found not guilty and ordered to be released...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside; appellant found not guilty and ordered to be released immediately.

Orders

  • The appeal against the convictions for murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances is upheld, and the convictions and sentences on those counts are set aside.
  • The order of the trial court is replaced with: 'The fourth accused is found not guilty on the charges of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances.'