S v Daniso and Others (CC59/2018) [2019] ZAECELLC 27 (9 September 2019)

S v Daniso and Others (CC59/2018) [2019] ZAECELLC 27 (9 September 2019)

The court found that the State failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The identification evidence was unreliable, lacking sufficient physical descriptions and marked by contradictions and discrepancies between witness statements and testimony. The State did not investigate or challenge the alibi defences, despite having ample opportunity and resources. The doctrine of common purpose was not established on the evidence presented. The cumulative effect of unreliable identification, unchallenged alibis, and material contradictions rendered the State's case so poor that no reasonable court could convict. Accordingly, all accused were discharged in terms of section 174 of...

Citation
[2019] ZAECELLC 27
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Siziwe Nomveliso Daniso; Respondent: Vuyokazi Nompuku Mapikata; Respondent: Nomfuneko Mjingane; Respondent: Phelisa Novelo Shotana; Respondent: Nosicelo Wewe; Respondent: Nomvuyo Qawe; Respondent: Zwelixolile Nkohla; Respondent: Pheliswa Nobambapha Vakele; Respondent: Khanyisa Mbandayi Vumani; Respondent: Makaziwe Nosakhele Bonte; Respondent: Sakhumzi Koshe; Respondent: Sinethemba Mabhuti Deyzana; Respondent: Lubabalo Mpitimpiti; Respondent: Lusanda Deyzana; Respondent: Makhi Sam; Respondent: Bonke Ludidi
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 September 2019
Case Number
CC59/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Trial / Section 174 Discharge Application
Outcome
All accused found not guilty and discharged in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Judges
Malusi
Legal Topics
Identification Evidence, Section 174 Discharge, Alibi Defence, Common Purpose, Burden of Proof
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Identification Evidence Section 174 Discharge Alibi Defence Common Purpose Burden of Proof

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

The State

Applicant

Siziwe Nomveliso Daniso

Respondent

Vuyokazi Nompuku Mapikata

Respondent

Nomfuneko Mjingane

Respondent

Phelisa Novelo Shotana

Respondent

Nosicelo Wewe

Respondent

Nomvuyo Qawe

Respondent

Zwelixolile Nkohla

Respondent

Pheliswa Nobambapha Vakele

Respondent

Khanyisa Mbandayi Vumani

Respondent

Makaziwe Nosakhele Bonte

Respondent

Sakhumzi Koshe

Respondent

Sinethemba Mabhuti Deyzana

Respondent

Lubabalo Mpitimpiti

Respondent

Lusanda Deyzana

Respondent

Makhi Sam

Respondent

Bonke Ludidi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Trial / Section 174 Discharge Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State established a prima facie case against the accused sufficient to put them to their defence.
  2. 2 Whether the identification evidence presented by the State witnesses was reliable and met the required threshold.
  3. 3 Whether the State discharged its onus to disprove the alibi defences raised by the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the State failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused. The identification evidence was unreliable, lacking sufficient physical descriptions and marked by contradictions and discrepancies between witness statements and testimony. The State did not investigate or challenge the alibi defences, despite having ample opportunity and resources. The doctrine of common purpose was not established on the evidence presented. The cumulative effect of unreliable identification, unchallenged alibis, and material contradictions rendered the State's case so poor that no reasonable court could convict. Accordingly, all accused were discharged in terms of section 174 of...

Court Disposition

All accused found not guilty and discharged in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Orders

  • All accused are found not guilty and discharged.
  • No costs order is made against defence counsel, but a warning is issued regarding future conduct.