S v Makatees [2007] ZAFSHC 30 (29 March 2007)

S v Makatees [2007] ZAFSHC 30 (29 March 2007)

The appeal succeeded because the evidence implicating the appellant was either inadmissible hearsay or contradicted by other accepted testimony. The trial court failed to properly consider the admissibility of hearsay evidence and did not comply with statutory requirements. The only evidence linking the appellant to the crime was either unreliable or directly refuted by credible witnesses. The appellant's silence could not be held against him, as the State's case did not require an answer. Consequently, the conviction and sentence could not stand.

Citation
[2007] ZAFSHC 30
Parties
Appellant: Wilson Maqabe Makatees; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2007
Case Number
A193/2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
C.B. Cillié, S. Ebrahim, C.J. Musi
Legal Topics
Housebreaking and Theft, Hearsay Evidence, Admissibility of Evidence, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Housebreaking and Theft Hearsay Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Onus 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilson Maqabe Makatees

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft was supported by admissible and reliable evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court correctly admitted and relied upon hearsay evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's failure to testify could be held against him in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the evidence implicating the appellant was either inadmissible hearsay or contradicted by other accepted testimony. The trial court failed to properly consider the admissibility of hearsay evidence and did not comply with statutory requirements. The only evidence linking the appellant to the crime was either unreliable or directly refuted by credible witnesses. The appellant's silence could not be held against him, as the State's case did not require an answer. Consequently, the conviction and sentence could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside.