S v Jaxa and Another (CC10/09) [2009] ZAECGHC 5 (5 March 2009)

S v Jaxa and Another (CC10/09) [2009] ZAECGHC 5 (5 March 2009)

The court found that the evidence against accused number 1 was overwhelming: he was found in possession of stolen items, his clothing and a knife were stained with the deceased's blood, and his fingerprint was found on the safe, moistened with blood. His explanations were rejected as false beyond reasonable doubt, and the conspiracy theory was found to be implausible. The only reasonable inference was that accused number 1 committed the murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances. For accused number 2, the court held that the confession by accused number 1 was inadmissible against him. The fact that accused number 2 pointed out the location of stolen items did not exclude other...

Citation
[2009] ZAECGHC 5
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Mluleki Elvis Jaxa; Defendant: Lwando Ernest Hesi
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2009
Case Number
CC10/09
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Conviction and Acquittal
Outcome
Accused number 1 is convicted of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances. Accused number 2 is acquitted on both charges.
Judges
Plasket
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Admissibility of Confessions, Inference From Circumstantial Evidence, Onus of Proof, Application of Common Purpose
Criminal Law Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Admissibility of Confessions Inference From Circumstantial Evidence Onus of Proof Application of Common Purpose

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Mluleki Elvis Jaxa

Defendant

Lwando Ernest Hesi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Conviction and Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused number 1 committed murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether accused number 2's involvement in the offences was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. 3 Whether the confession by accused number 1 is admissible against accused number 2.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence against accused number 1 was overwhelming: he was found in possession of stolen items, his clothing and a knife were stained with the deceased's blood, and his fingerprint was found on the safe, moistened with blood. His explanations were rejected as false beyond reasonable doubt, and the conspiracy theory was found to be implausible. The only reasonable inference was that accused number 1 committed the murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances. For accused number 2, the court held that the confession by accused number 1 was inadmissible against him. The fact that accused number 2 pointed out the location of stolen items did not exclude other...

Court Disposition

Accused number 1 is convicted of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances. Accused number 2 is acquitted on both charges.

Orders

  • Accused number 1 is convicted of murder.
  • Accused number 1 is convicted of robbery with aggravating circumstances.