Nokhokhoba and Another v S (Leave to Appeal) (CC28/2024) [2025] ZAECMHC 50 (3 June 2025)

Nokhokhoba and Another v S (Leave to Appeal) (CC28/2024) [2025] ZAECMHC 50 (3 June 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the statutory threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The grounds advanced by the applicants, including alleged misdirection in accepting the section 204 witness's evidence and the absence of forensic evidence, were considered and addressed in the trial judgment. The court held that the State was not obliged to present all possible evidence, especially where direct evidence linked the applicants to the crimes. The application was found to be based on the mere possibility that another court might reach a different conclusion, which does not satisfy the requirement for reasonable prospects of...

Citation
[2025] ZAECMHC 50
Parties
Applicant: Ntuthuzelo Nokhokhoba; Applicant: Sandile Ntshetshe; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2025
Case Number
CC28/2024
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused.
Judges
Ngoqo
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Reasonable Prospects of Success, Section 204 Witness, Admissibility of Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospects of Success Section 204 Witness Admissibility of Evidence Forensic Evidence 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ntuthuzelo Nokhokhoba

Applicant

Sandile Ntshetshe

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal as required by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court misdirected itself in accepting the evidence of the section 204 witness.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of forensic evidence such as DNA and fingerprints undermines the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the statutory threshold for leave to appeal as set out in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The grounds advanced by the applicants, including alleged misdirection in accepting the section 204 witness's evidence and the absence of forensic evidence, were considered and addressed in the trial judgment. The court held that the State was not obliged to present all possible evidence, especially where direct evidence linked the applicants to the crimes. The application was found to be based on the mere possibility that another court might reach a different conclusion, which does not satisfy the requirement for reasonable prospects of...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.