S v Cakasayo and Others (SS01/2016) [2019] ZAWCHC 184 (30 July 2019)

S v Cakasayo and Others (SS01/2016) [2019] ZAWCHC 184 (30 July 2019)

The court found that the evidence of the single eyewitness, Twazi, was not sufficiently reliable or satisfactory to sustain a conviction, given contradictions, deficiencies in police procedure, and lack of corroboration. The ballistic expert evidence was ruled inadmissible and unreliable due to inadequate explanation, lack of objective supporting material, and risks of confirmational bias. The accused provided plausible alibi evidence, and the State failed to prove possession of the firearm by Accused 4 beyond reasonable doubt. Adopting a holistic approach, the court concluded that the State had not established the guilt of any accused on any charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 184
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Andile Cakasayo; Respondent: Melikhaya Cakasayo; Respondent: Nkosithandile Cakasayo; Respondent: Nyameko Daki
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 July 2019
Case Number
SS01/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
All accused acquitted on all charges.
Judges
Sievers
Legal Topics
Murder, Attempted Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearms, Single Witness Evidence, Expert Evidence, Identification Evidence
Criminal Law Murder Attempted Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearms Single Witness Evidence Expert Evidence Identification Evidence

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Andile Cakasayo

Respondent

Melikhaya Cakasayo

Respondent

Nkosithandile Cakasayo

Respondent

Nyameko Daki

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence of a single witness is sufficiently reliable to sustain a conviction.
  2. 2 Whether the ballistic expert evidence is admissible and probative.
  3. 3 Whether the accused were correctly identified as perpetrators of the shooting.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence of the single eyewitness, Twazi, was not sufficiently reliable or satisfactory to sustain a conviction, given contradictions, deficiencies in police procedure, and lack of corroboration. The ballistic expert evidence was ruled inadmissible and unreliable due to inadequate explanation, lack of objective supporting material, and risks of confirmational bias. The accused provided plausible alibi evidence, and the State failed to prove possession of the firearm by Accused 4 beyond reasonable doubt. Adopting a holistic approach, the court concluded that the State had not established the guilt of any accused on any charge beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

All accused acquitted on all charges.

Orders

  • The four accused are acquitted on all charges.