S v Nongogo (5/1986) [1987] ZASCA 104 (25 September 1987)
- Citation
- [1987] ZASCA 104
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Corbett, Van Heerden, Nicholas
- Case number
- 5/1986
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Appeal
- Panel
- Corbett, Van Heerden, Nicholas
- Case number
- 5/1986
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof required to rebut the statutory presumption of unlawful possession of Mandrax tablets. The appellant's explanation for possessing the tablets was deemed highly improbable and unacceptable, particularly given her failure to dispose of them promptly despite knowing their possession was illegal. The magistrate's assessment of the appellant as a poor witness who contradicted herself and gave evasive answers was upheld. The court agreed with the magistrate's view regarding the probabilities and found no reason to interfere with the conviction. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are confirmed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Victoria Nongogo
AppellantThe State
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellant discharged the burden of proof to rebut the statutory presumption of unlawful possession of Mandrax tablets.
- 02
Whether the appellant's version of events was reasonably possibly true.
- 03
Whether the magistrate correctly assessed the credibility of the appellant as a witness.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant argued that she did not possess the Mandrax tablets unlawfully, claiming she removed them from her husband's possession with the intention to dispose of them later. She contended that her actions were motivated by concern for her husband's drug addiction and that she planned to throw the tablets away in a nearby bush. She asserted that she had no intention to possess the drugs unlawfully and that her explanation was reasonably possibly true.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof required to rebut the statutory presumption of unlawful possession. The State argued that the appellant's explanation was highly improbable, particularly given her failure to dispose of the tablets promptly despite knowing their possession was illegal. The respondent further contended that the appellant's testimony was evasive and inconsistent, undermining her credibility.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 10, Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 41 of 1971
A person found in possession of prohibited substances bears the burden to rebut the statutory presumption of unlawful possession by providing a reasonably possibly true explanation.
- 02
S v Kubeka 1982 (1) SA 534 (W)
The credibility of a witness and the probability of their version must be assessed in light of all the circumstances and evidence presented.
- 03
S v Difford 1937 AD 370
Where an accused's explanation is not reasonably possibly true, the court is entitled to reject it and convict on the main charge.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof required to rebut the statutory presumption of unlawful possession of Mandrax tablets. The appellant's explanation for possessing the tablets was deemed highly improbable and unacceptable, particularly given her failure to dispose of them promptly despite knowing their possession was illegal. The magistrate's assessment of the appellant as a poor witness who contradicted herself and gave evasive answers was upheld. The court agreed with the magistrate's view regarding the probabilities and found no reason to interfere with the conviction. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The application to reopen the case for the appellant's husband to testify was abandoned at the hearing and required no further consideration.
- The court noted that the appellant had ample opportunity to dispose of the tablets but failed to do so, which undermined her explanation.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.
- The appeal is dismissed.
- The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court are confirmed.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Appeal
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.
Supreme Court of Appeal
Judgment
LL Saak No 5/1986
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA APPeLAFDELING
Insake die appel van:
VICTORIA NONGOGO Appellanteteen
DIE STAAT Respondent
CORAM: CORBETT, VAN HEERDEN ARR et NICHOLAS
WAR
VERHOORDATUM: 21 SEPTEMBER 1987 LEWERINGSDATUM: 25 SEPTEMBER 1987
UITSPRAAK
/VAN HEERDEN AR ...
2.
VAN HEERDEM AR:
Die appellante is in 1983 in besit gevind van 32 Mandrax tablette bevattende metakaloon. Sy is in die landdroshof aangekla van 'n oortreding van art 2 (a) , al-ternatiewelik 2 (b), van Wet 41 van 1971. Sy het op die alternatiewe aankïag skuldig gepleit, erken dat sy in besit van die tabiette gevind is, en toe getuienis ge-gee ter weerlegging van die vermoede vervat in art 10 van die wet. Sy is op die hoofklag skuldig bevind en ge-vormis tot 5 jaar gevangenisstraf. Haar appël na die Kaapse Provinsiale Afdeling is afgewys en met die nodige verlof is die onderhawige appêl slegs teen die skuldigbe-vinding gerig.
Die appellante, 'n Swart huisvrou, en haar man was in Guguletu woonagtig. Gedurende die naweek voor Maandag, 22 Augustus 1983, is een of ander partytjie in hulle huis gehou wat eers die Maandagoggend tot 'n einde gekom het. Die appellante se weergawe was dat haar man toe reeds vir 'n tydperk van twee jaar aan verdowings-
/middels ...
3.
middels verslaaf was. Sy het hom voorheen gemaan om van dié middels af te sien maar hy wou nie gehoor gee. nie en gedurende die naweek het hy weer daarvan gebruik. Omstreeks 6 vm op die Maandagoggend het hy gaan slaap. Sy het toe gemerk dat hy 'n plastieksakkie met tablette in sy broeksak steek. Toe hy aan die slaap was, het sy die sakkie verwyder en op haar persoon versteek met die voorneme om dit dié aand in 'n bos oorkant die straat weg te gooi. Omstreeks 12 nm het die polisie egter by hulle huis opgedaag. Sy is deur 'n polisievrou gevi-senteer en die sakkie met tablette is op haar gevind.
Die landdros het nie net bevind dat die appel-lante haar nie van haar bewyslas gekwyt het nie, maar het tot die slotsom gekom dat haar weergawe nie redelik moont-lik wáar was nie. Nadat die landdros hierdie slotsom bereik het, het hy en passant gemeld dat 'n nadelige af-leiding teen die appellante gemaak kon word uit die feit dat haar man nie getuienis ter stawing van haar weergawe
/gegee ...
4.
gegee het nie. Dit was waarskynlik hierdie opmerking wat daartoe gelei het dat die appellante 'n aansoek aan hierdie hof gerig het vir terugverwysing van die saak na die landdros en heropening daarvan sodat haar man ten gunste van haar kan getuig. Dié aansoek is egter by die verhoor van die appèl tereg laat vaar en dit is on-nodig om enigiets verder daaroor te sê.
Die landdros het ook bevind dat die appellante 'n swak getuie was wat haarself weerspreek het en vrae ont-wykend beantwoord het. Voorts is haar weergawe waarom sy nie vroeg die betrokke oggend van die tablette ontslae geraak het nie, as hoogs onwaarskynlik bestempel.
Die appellante se advokaat het enkele oorwegings geopper ter onderskraging van sy betoog dat sy haar van haar bewyslas gekwyt het. Dié is egter so klaarblyklik ongefundeer dat nadere toeligting nie nodig is nie. Ek hoef slegs te meld dat ek die landdros se sienswyse aan-gaande die waarskynlikhede deel. Volgens die appellante
/sou ...
5.
sou haar man vermoed het dat sy die tablette verwyder het wanneer hy agtergekom het dat dit nie meer in sy broeksak was nie. Sy het dus rede gehad om so gou moont lik van die tablette ontslae te raak, te meer aangesien sy geweet het dat die besit daarvan onwettig was. Tog het sy die tablette vir nagenoeg ses uur by haar gehou, terwyl niks haar verhoed het nie om dit byvoorbeeld in 'n asdrom te gooi, in 'n toilet af te spoel, of in die bos oorkant die huis weg te gooi. Die appellante se verduideliking waarom sy dit nie gedoen het nie, is dan ook heeltemal onaanvaarbaar.
Gevolglik word die appèl afgewys.
H.J.O. VAN HEERDEN AR
CORBETT AR
STEM SAAM NICHOLAS WAR
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.