S v Makhubo (37/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 393 (18 November 2024)

S v Makhubo (37/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 393 (18 November 2024)

The court found that the evidence presented by the State on counts 1 and 2, including the testimony of Ms Matla and Mr Mono, placed the accused at the scene and implicated him in the murder and attempted murder. The accused was involved in a confrontation with the deceased and was armed with a firearm. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable person to convict, and therefore the application for discharge on counts 1 and 2 was denied. On count 3, the complainant could not identify the accused as the shooter, and the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. The State conceded this point, and the court granted the application for discharge on count 3.

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 393
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Tanki James Makhubo
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2024
Case Number
37/2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Application for Discharge at Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome
Application for discharge in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act is denied on counts 1 and 2 and granted on count 3.
Judges
Mahlatsi AJ
Legal Topics
Section 174 Discharge, Murder, Attempted Murder, Criminal Procedure Act, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Section 174 Discharge Murder Attempted Murder Criminal Procedure Act Credibility of Witnesses

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Tanki James Makhubo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Application for Discharge at Close of Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is sufficient evidence at the close of the State's case to put the accused to his defence on counts 1 and 2.
  2. 2 Whether the application for discharge in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act should be granted on count 3.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence presented by the State on counts 1 and 2, including the testimony of Ms Matla and Mr Mono, placed the accused at the scene and implicated him in the murder and attempted murder. The accused was involved in a confrontation with the deceased and was armed with a firearm. The evidence was sufficient for a reasonable person to convict, and therefore the application for discharge on counts 1 and 2 was denied. On count 3, the complainant could not identify the accused as the shooter, and the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. The State conceded this point, and the court granted the application for discharge on count 3.

Court Disposition

Application for discharge in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act is denied on counts 1 and 2 and granted on count 3.

Orders

  • The application in terms of section 174 of Act 51 of 1977 on counts 1 and 2 is denied.
  • The application in terms of section 174 of Act 51 of 1977 on count 3 is granted.