Qurashi and Others v The State (1166/2018) [2022] ZASCA 118; [2022] 4 All SA 295 (SCA); 2022 (2) SACR 459 (SCA) (22 August 2022)

Qurashi and Others v The State (1166/2018) [2022] ZASCA 118; [2022] 4 All SA 295 (SCA); 2022 (2) SACR 459 (SCA) (22 August 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the searches and seizures, although conducted without warrants, did not violate the appellants' constitutional rights in a manner that rendered the trial unfair or was detrimental to the administration of justice. The searches were either conducted with the permission of the letting agent or pursuant to lawful arrest, and the chain of custody of exhibits was maintained. The court distinguished between real and testimonial evidence, finding that the evidence obtained was real and not conscriptive or self-incriminatory. The court found that the hearsay evidence of Ms Saleem and Ms Awan was properly admitted under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 118
Parties
Appellant: Saleem Qurashi; Appellant: Farhan Ullah; Appellant: Shabbir Gullam; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 August 2022
Case Number
1166/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.
Judges
Ponnan, Van der Merwe, Carelse, Makaula, Phatshoane
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay Evidence, Common Purpose Liability, Constitutional Right to Fair Trial
Criminal Law Search and Seizure Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Evidence Common Purpose Liability Constitutional Right to Fair Trial

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saleem Qurashi

Appellant

Farhan Ullah

Appellant

Shabbir Gullam

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence obtained through search and seizure without a warrant violated the appellants' constitutional rights to privacy and a fair trial.
  2. 2 Whether hearsay evidence, including extra-curial statements and pointing out, was admissible against the accused.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in its credibility findings regarding prosecution witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the searches and seizures, although conducted without warrants, did not violate the appellants' constitutional rights in a manner that rendered the trial unfair or was detrimental to the administration of justice. The searches were either conducted with the permission of the letting agent or pursuant to lawful arrest, and the chain of custody of exhibits was maintained. The court distinguished between real and testimonial evidence, finding that the evidence obtained was real and not conscriptive or self-incriminatory. The court found that the hearsay evidence of Ms Saleem and Ms Awan was properly admitted under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.