S v Mello and Others (SS8/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1468 (5 December 2023)

S v Mello and Others (SS8/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1468 (5 December 2023)

The court found that the State's case was undermined by material contradictions and inconsistencies among the eyewitnesses regarding the events leading to the deceased's death. The evidence presented by the State was of such poor quality that no reasonable court could convict the accused on it. The court held that the State failed to establish a prima facie case requiring the accused to answer, and that the accused should not be compelled to incriminate themselves in the absence of credible evidence. Accordingly, the application for discharge under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act was granted for all accused on both counts.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1468
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Mello, Lebohang Bejamin; Defendant: Leshabane, Stephen Mathopi; Defendant: Ramagoshi, Koena Given; Defendant: Moatshe, Donald Kagiso; Defendant: Rapelo, Donald Potleli
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2023
Case Number
SS8/2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Section 174 Application Post State Case
Outcome
All accused discharged on all counts under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Judges
Oosthuizen-Senekal CSP
Legal Topics
Section 174 Discharge, Murder, Kidnapping, Common Purpose, Minimum Sentence Act
Criminal Law Section 174 Discharge Murder Kidnapping Common Purpose Minimum Sentence Act

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Mello, Lebohang Bejamin

Defendant

Leshabane, Stephen Mathopi

Defendant

Ramagoshi, Koena Given

Defendant

Moatshe, Donald Kagiso

Defendant

Rapelo, Donald Potleli

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Section 174 Application Post State Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is sufficient evidence on which a reasonable court might convict the accused of kidnapping and murder.
  2. 2 Whether the contradictions and credibility issues in the State's evidence justify a discharge under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the State's case was undermined by material contradictions and inconsistencies among the eyewitnesses regarding the events leading to the deceased's death. The evidence presented by the State was of such poor quality that no reasonable court could convict the accused on it. The court held that the State failed to establish a prima facie case requiring the accused to answer, and that the accused should not be compelled to incriminate themselves in the absence of credible evidence. Accordingly, the application for discharge under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act was granted for all accused on both counts.

Court Disposition

All accused discharged on all counts under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Orders

  • The application in terms of section 174 in respect of all accused succeeds and the accused are discharged on all counts against them in terms of section 174 of the CPA.