Nohour and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (1139/2018) [2020] ZASCA 27; 2020 (2) SACR 229 (SCA) (26 March 2020)

Nohour and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development (1139/2018) [2020] ZASCA 27; 2020 (2) SACR 229 (SCA) (26 March 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that although the prosecutor failed to disclose material information, the appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that such omission caused their conviction. The trial magistrate was made aware of the complainant's alleged status as a prostitute and considered it in evaluating the evidence. The complainant's testimony, corroborated by independent witnesses and medical evidence, supported the finding of non-consensual intercourse. The appellants failed to establish factual causation, as it was speculative whether disclosure would have led to acquittal. The court found no causal link between the prosecutor's omission and the conviction, and...

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 27
Parties
Appellant: Vishnu Nohour; Appellant: Neville Michael Charles; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2020
Case Number
1139/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Division of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Judges
Petse, Van der Merwe, Dlodlo
Legal Topics
Wrongful Conviction, Causation, Animus Iniuriandi, Negligent Omission, Damages, Ex Turpi Causa
Delict Civil Procedure Wrongful Conviction Causation Animus Iniuriandi Negligent Omission Damages Ex Turpi Causa

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vishnu Nohour

Appellant

Neville Michael Charles

Appellant

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal Division of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants proved wrongful conviction by the conduct of the prosecution.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence established on a balance of probabilities that acquittal would have followed if no irregularity had been committed.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the prosecution was the cause of conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that although the prosecutor failed to disclose material information, the appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that such omission caused their conviction. The trial magistrate was made aware of the complainant's alleged status as a prostitute and considered it in evaluating the evidence. The complainant's testimony, corroborated by independent witnesses and medical evidence, supported the finding of non-consensual intercourse. The appellants failed to establish factual causation, as it was speculative whether disclosure would have led to acquittal. The court found no causal link between the prosecutor's omission and the conviction, and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.