S v Mkhize and Another (CC12/2010) [2010] ZAKZPHC 65 (23 September 2010)

S v Mkhize and Another (CC12/2010) [2010] ZAKZPHC 65 (23 September 2010)

The court found that the complainant's identification of the accused was credible, supported by prior acquaintance, voice, clothing, and close proximity, and not displaced by the defence. The accused's alibi was rejected as a recent fabrication, lacking corroboration and undermined by contradictions and improbabilities in their version. The complainant's evidence was corroborated by other witnesses and was accepted as reliable. The court held that the State proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for theft and rape, but not for housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery as charged. The evidence supported convictions for theft of R5000 and liquor, and for two counts of rape,...

Citation
[2010] ZAKZPHC 65
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Ndumiso Mkhize; Respondent: Thamsanqa Sanele Ntombela
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2010
Case Number
CC12/2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Both accused found guilty of theft and two counts of rape; not guilty of housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery as charged.
Judges
Ngwenya AJ
Legal Topics
Rape, Theft, Housebreaking, Identification Evidence, Alibi, Common Purpose
Criminal Law Rape Theft Housebreaking Identification Evidence Alibi 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Ndumiso Mkhize

Respondent

Thamsanqa Sanele Ntombela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused were correctly identified as the perpetrators of the offences charged.
  2. 2 Whether the State proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the identity of the accused.
  3. 3 Whether the defence of alibi raised by the accused is reasonably possibly true.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the complainant's identification of the accused was credible, supported by prior acquaintance, voice, clothing, and close proximity, and not displaced by the defence. The accused's alibi was rejected as a recent fabrication, lacking corroboration and undermined by contradictions and improbabilities in their version. The complainant's evidence was corroborated by other witnesses and was accepted as reliable. The court held that the State proved the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for theft and rape, but not for housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery as charged. The evidence supported convictions for theft of R5000 and liquor, and for two counts of rape,...

Court Disposition

Both accused found guilty of theft and two counts of rape; not guilty of housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery as charged.

Orders

  • Accused number one and accused number two are found not guilty on count one as per indictment but guilty on a count of theft of R5000 plus liquor for unspecified amount.
  • Both accused are found guilty as charged on count two (rape).