S v Mokoena (CC469/08) [2010] ZAGPJHC 44 (28 May 2010)

S v Mokoena (CC469/08) [2010] ZAGPJHC 44 (28 May 2010)

The court held that the section 112 statement made by Mr Letshele, a co-accused who pleaded guilty, may be admitted for the purpose of testing his credibility as a witness, provided he is recalled and the statement is put to him. The application to recall the witness was made promptly and does not prejudice the State or the witness to an extent that undermines the fairness of the trial. The statement is not to be used as proof of its contents or to incriminate the accused before the court, but solely to test the credibility of the witness. The court distinguished the present case from S v Witbooi and Others, noting that the concerns about prejudice in that case do not apply here because...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPJHC 44
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Ruben Queen Mokoena; Defendant: Mvula Nicodimus Shabangu
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2010
Case Number
CC469/08
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Trial / Application to Recall Witness and Admit Section 112 Statement
Outcome
Application to recall Mr Letshele granted; section 112 statement may be introduced for the limited purpose of testing credibility.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Section 112 Statement, Cross Examination, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admissibility of Evidence Section 112 Statement Cross Examination Fair Trial Rights

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Ruben Queen Mokoena

Defendant

Mvula Nicodimus Shabangu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Trial / Application to Recall Witness and Admit Section 112 Statement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the section 112 statement made by a co-accused can be admitted for the purpose of testing the credibility of a witness.
  2. 2 Whether recalling the witness after excusal prejudices the State or the witness and undermines the fairness of the trial.
  3. 3 Whether the section 112 statement can be used to incriminate co-accused before separation of trials.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the section 112 statement made by Mr Letshele, a co-accused who pleaded guilty, may be admitted for the purpose of testing his credibility as a witness, provided he is recalled and the statement is put to him. The application to recall the witness was made promptly and does not prejudice the State or the witness to an extent that undermines the fairness of the trial. The statement is not to be used as proof of its contents or to incriminate the accused before the court, but solely to test the credibility of the witness. The court distinguished the present case from S v Witbooi and Others, noting that the concerns about prejudice in that case do not apply here because...

Court Disposition

Application to recall Mr Letshele granted; section 112 statement may be introduced for the limited purpose of testing credibility.

Orders

  • Mr Letshele is to be recalled as a witness.
  • Mr Tlouane may seek to introduce the section 112 statement for the purpose of testing the credibility of the witness.