S v Makhala and Others (SS06/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 182 (11 December 2019)

S v Makhala and Others (SS06/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 182 (11 December 2019)

The court found that the statements made by Luzuko Makhala to the police were admissible as hearsay evidence under Section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as they were made freely and voluntarily, corroborated by objective and circumstantial evidence, and their admission was in the interests of justice. The court rejected the accused's version as improbable and unconvincing, noting inconsistencies and suspicious conduct, including attempts to mislead police and evade arrest. The identification of accused 3 by the deceased's family, corroborated by cell phone and circumstantial evidence, further supported the State's case. The court held that all three accused, together with...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 182
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Mawanda Makhala; Defendant: Velile Waxa; Defendant: Vela Patrick Dumile
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2019
Case Number
SS06/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Judgment
Outcome
All three accused found guilty on all charges: murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and joint possession of a firearm and ammunition.
Judges
Henney
Legal Topics
Murder, Conspiracy to Commit Murder, Joint Possession of Firearm, Admissibility of Hearsay, Section 204 Witness, Common Purpose
Criminal Law Murder Conspiracy to Commit Murder Joint Possession of Firearm Admissibility of Hearsay Section 204 Witness 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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Mawanda Makhala

Defendant

Velile Waxa

Defendant

Vela Patrick Dumile

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by Luzuko Makhala to the police are admissible as hearsay evidence under Section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988.
  2. 2 Whether the accused formed a common purpose and conspired to murder the deceased, Mr Victor Molosi.
  3. 3 Whether all three accused are guilty of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and joint possession of a firearm and ammunition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements made by Luzuko Makhala to the police were admissible as hearsay evidence under Section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as they were made freely and voluntarily, corroborated by objective and circumstantial evidence, and their admission was in the interests of justice. The court rejected the accused's version as improbable and unconvincing, noting inconsistencies and suspicious conduct, including attempts to mislead police and evade arrest. The identification of accused 3 by the deceased's family, corroborated by cell phone and circumstantial evidence, further supported the State's case. The court held that all three accused, together with...

Court Disposition

All three accused found guilty on all charges: murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and joint possession of a firearm and ammunition.

Orders

  • All three accused are convicted on the main count of murder of Mr Victor Molosi.
  • All three accused are convicted on counts of conspiracy to commit murder and joint possession of a firearm and ammunition.