S v Kekana and Others (SS65/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1065 (7 March 2022)

S v Kekana and Others (SS65/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1065 (7 March 2022)

The court found that the State had discharged its onus to prove the originality and authenticity of the video footage through the evidence of Mr. Ruwendo, who was solely responsible for the cameras at JIT College and possessed the necessary expertise. There was no evidence of tampering or contamination after the footage was handed to Ms. Twala. The objections raised by the defence regarding the chain of custody and uncertainty about the footage were negated by the clear evidence of Mr. Ruwendo. The court accepted that the footage was authentic and relevant to the identification of the scene and the accused. The court further held that evidence from the main trial may not be used in the...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 1065
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Kekana Tshepisho; Respondent: Motseothata Cidraas Boitumelo; Respondent: Legodi Madimetja Joseph; Respondent: Mohammed Victor Nkosinathi
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2022
Case Number
SS65/2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Trial Within Trial on Admissibility of Video Evidence
Outcome
Application by the State to admit the video footage is granted.
Judges
Malangeni
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Real Evidence, Video Evidence, Chain of Custody, Originality and Authenticity, Trial Within Trial
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Real Evidence Video Evidence Chain of Custody Originality and Authenticity Trial Within 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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Kekana Tshepisho

Respondent

Motseothata Cidraas Boitumelo

Respondent

Legodi Madimetja Joseph

Respondent

Mohammed Victor Nkosinathi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law / Trial Within Trial on Admissibility of Video Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the video footage is admissible as real evidence in the criminal trial.
  2. 2 Whether the State has established the originality and authenticity of the video footage.
  3. 3 Whether evidence from the main trial may be used in the trial within a trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the State had discharged its onus to prove the originality and authenticity of the video footage through the evidence of Mr. Ruwendo, who was solely responsible for the cameras at JIT College and possessed the necessary expertise. There was no evidence of tampering or contamination after the footage was handed to Ms. Twala. The objections raised by the defence regarding the chain of custody and uncertainty about the footage were negated by the clear evidence of Mr. Ruwendo. The court accepted that the footage was authentic and relevant to the identification of the scene and the accused. The court further held that evidence from the main trial may not be used in the...

Court Disposition

Application by the State to admit the video footage is granted.

Orders

  • The State is permitted to lead the contents of the video footage applied for.