S v Masango (52/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 393 (23 August 2019)

S v Masango (52/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 393 (23 August 2019)

The court found that the State's evidence was unreliable, contradictory, and insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused on any of the charges. The only witness was under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and his testimony was inconsistent regarding whether he saw the accused fire shots. The State failed to present direct evidence linking the accused to the offences, and circumstantial evidence did not exclude the reasonable possibility that someone else could have fired the shots. The application to admit hearsay evidence was dismissed as it would unfairly prejudice the accused and was not in the interests of justice. Applying section 174 of the Criminal Procedure...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 393
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Jabulani Harold Masango
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2019
Case Number
52/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Section 174 Discharge Application
Outcome
The accused is found not guilty and discharged on all four counts.
Judges
Mogotsi
Legal Topics
Section 174 Discharge, Murder, Attempted Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Unlawful Possession of Ammunition
Criminal Law Section 174 Discharge Murder Attempted Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearm Unlawful Possession of Ammunition

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Jabulani Harold Masango

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Section 174 Discharge Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against the accused on charges of murder, attempted murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.
  2. 2 Whether hearsay evidence should be admitted under section 3(1)(c) of Act 45 of 1988.
  3. 3 Whether circumstantial evidence implicates the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the State's evidence was unreliable, contradictory, and insufficient to establish a prima facie case against the accused on any of the charges. The only witness was under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and his testimony was inconsistent regarding whether he saw the accused fire shots. The State failed to present direct evidence linking the accused to the offences, and circumstantial evidence did not exclude the reasonable possibility that someone else could have fired the shots. The application to admit hearsay evidence was dismissed as it would unfairly prejudice the accused and was not in the interests of justice. Applying section 174 of the Criminal Procedure...

Court Disposition

The accused is found not guilty and discharged on all four counts.

Orders

  • The accused, Jabulani Harold Masango, is discharged on all charges of murder, attempted murder, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition.
  • The application to admit hearsay evidence is dismissed.