S v Mokone (954/2004) [2004] ZAFSHC 73 (29 July 2004)
- Citation
- [2004] ZAFSHC 73
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Van Coppenhagen, Wright
- Case number
- 954/2004
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Van Coppenhagen, Wright
- Case number
- 954/2004
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The State failed to present direct evidence that the accused herself supplied liquor to persons under the age of 18, despite having obtained statements from minors who allegedly consumed liquor on the premises. The presence of another person selling liquor and the absence of direct testimony from the minors created reasonable doubt. The State did not discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence cannot stand and must be set aside.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence set aside.
Orders
- The accused's conviction and imposed sentence are set aside.
- Any fine paid by the accused must be refunded to her.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantTselane Elizabeth Mokone
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: ZAR 2,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Review of Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused supplied liquor to a person under 18 years of age.
- 02
Whether the failure to call direct witnesses to the alleged sale of liquor to minors was fatal to the State's case.
- 03
Whether the conviction and sentence should be set aside due to insufficient evidence.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State argued that on 9 September 2003, persons estimated to be between 15 and 16 years old were found on and outside the licensed premises of the accused. Some of these minors were allegedly consuming liquor and stated that they had purchased it at Victoria Tavern. The State relied on witness testimony from police officers and other witnesses present at the scene.
- Respondent
- The accused denied personally selling any liquor to persons under the age of 18 at any time. She contended that there was no direct evidence linking her to the sale of liquor to minors and that another person was also selling liquor on the premises. The accused argued that the State failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Teixeira 1980 (3) SA 755 (A) at 764A-B
The burden of proof rests on the State to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly where direct evidence is available but not presented.
- 02
S v Teixeira 1980 (3) SA 755 (A)
Failure by the State to call a witness who could provide direct evidence may justify the inference that such evidence would not support the State's case.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The State failed to present direct evidence that the accused herself supplied liquor to persons under the age of 18, despite having obtained statements from minors who allegedly consumed liquor on the premises. The presence of another person selling liquor and the absence of direct testimony from the minors created reasonable doubt. The State did not discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence cannot stand and must be set aside.
Obiter and limits
- The best and most direct evidence in such cases is the testimony of the person to whom the liquor was allegedly supplied.
- Where the State has access to direct witnesses but fails to call them, the court may infer that their evidence would not support the prosecution's case.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence set aside.
- The accused's conviction and imposed sentence are set aside.
- Any fine paid by the accused must be refunded to her.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(ORANJE-VRYSTAATSE PROVINSIALE AFDELING)
Hersienings Nr. 954/2004
In die hersiening tussen:
DIE
STAAT
en
TSELANE
ELIZABETH MOKONE
_______________
CORAM: VAN COPPENHAGEN et WRIGHT, RR
UITSPRAAK DEUR: VAN COPPENHAGEN, R
GELEWER OP: 29 JULIE 2004
[1] Die beskuldigde was aangekla en skuldig bevind aan ân klagte ter oortreding van artikel 45(a) van Wet 27 van 1989, deurdat sy op 9 September 2003, te Virginia op ân gelisensieerde perseel drank aan ân persoon onder die ouderom van 18 jaar verskaf het.
Die vonnis was ân boete van R2 000,00 of ses maande gevangenisstraf.
[2] Artikel 45 van die Drankwet, Nr. 27 van 1989 sover te sake bepaal:
â45. Die houer van ân lisensie mag nie â
(a) drank op ân gelisensieerde perseel verkoop of verskaf aan enigiemand wat onder die ouderdom van 18 jaar is nie;
(b) ....â
[3] Die polisie het op 9 September 2003 persone waarvan die ouderdom geskat was op tussen 15 en 16 jaar buite die perseel en ook op die gelisensieerde perseel van die beskuldigde aangetref. Van hierdie kinders was volgens die getuies âbesig om drank in te neemâ en van die kinders het ook gesê dat hulle âdie bier, die drank gekoop het by die Victoria Taverneâ.
[4] Op die perseel was volgens minstens een Staatsgetuie benewens die beskuldigde ook ân ander persoon wat drank aan kliënte verkoop het.
Die beskuldigde het ontken dat sy self enige drank op enige stadium aan enige van die persone onder die ouderdom van 18 jaar verkoop het.
[5] Geen direkte getuienis van enige drankverkope deur die beskuldigde aan persone onder die ouderdom van 18 jaar was, nieteenstaande die beskuldigde se pertinente ontkenning van enige drankverkope deur haar, aangebied of gelewer en dit in weerwil daarvan dat die polisie minstens volgens hulle getuienis verklarings van minstens drie persone wat gedrink het bekom het.
[6] Die bewyslas was deurgaans op die Staat om te bewys as bewese bo redelike twyfel dat die beskuldigde sterk drank op die betrokke dag op die gelisensieerde perseel aan persone onder 18 jaar verskaf het. Die beste en direkte getuienis hieromtrent sou ongetwyfeld die persoon wees aan wie die drank verskaf was en van wie die polisie verklarings bekom het.
In S v TEIXEIRA 1980 (3) SA 755 (A) te 764A-B word die gevolge van die versuim om ân getuie te roep wat relevant is as volg toegelig:
âIn my opinion, the failure by the State to call Tshabalala to testify as a witness justifies the inference that in counselâs opinion his evidence might possibly give rise to contradictions which could reflect adversely on Sarahâs credibililty and reliability as a witness.â
Gegewe die feit dat minstens een ander persoon ook drank verskoop het, saamgeneem met die Staat se versuim om beskuldigde direk met die drankverkope te verbind terwyl daar moontlik sulke getuienis was, moet volg dat die Staat nie sy saak bo redelike twyfel bewys het nie.
[7] Die skuldigbevinding en vonnis moet tersyde gestel word.
Die volgende bevele word gemaak:
(i) Die beskuldigde se skuldigbevinding en opgelegde vonnis word tersyde gestel;
(ii) Die boete deur die beskuldigde betaal moet aan haar terugbetaal word.
______
G. VAN COPPENHAGEN, R
EK STEM SAAM
____
G.F. WRIGHT, R
/scd
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.