S v Morabe (561/91) [1993] ZASCA 103 (27 August 1993)

S v Morabe (561/91) [1993] ZASCA 103 (27 August 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in rejecting the appellant's version primarily on the basis of expert evidence, which did not conclusively exclude the possibility that the wounds could have been inflicted during a struggle. Both the medical expert and the ballistics expert conceded that, although unlikely, the appellant's account was anatomically and ballistically possible. The trial court failed to properly consider the expert evidence and instead relied on its own interpretation, which was not supported by the facts. The credibility findings against the appellant and his witnesses were not based on their demeanour but rather on probabilities, which were...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 103
Parties
Appellant: Robert Morabe; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 August 1993
Case Number
561/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Van Heerden, Smalberger, KrieglER
Legal Topics
Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearms, Self Defence, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearms Self Defence Credibility of Witnesses

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Morabe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conviction for murder and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant acted in self-defence during the fatal shooting incident.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court correctly assessed the credibility of the witnesses and expert evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court erred in rejecting the appellant's version primarily on the basis of expert evidence, which did not conclusively exclude the possibility that the wounds could have been inflicted during a struggle. Both the medical expert and the ballistics expert conceded that, although unlikely, the appellant's account was anatomically and ballistically possible. The trial court failed to properly consider the expert evidence and instead relied on its own interpretation, which was not supported by the facts. The credibility findings against the appellant and his witnesses were not based on their demeanour but rather on probabilities, which were...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The convictions and sentences are set aside.