S v Ntlokwana and Another (CC 20/2020) [2021] ZAECPEHC 44 (18 June 2021)

S v Ntlokwana and Another (CC 20/2020) [2021] ZAECPEHC 44 (18 June 2021)

The court found that the sworn statements of Kuhle and Lubabalo were admissible as hearsay evidence under section 3(1) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as they were made freely, voluntarily, and corroborated by other witnesses. Both accused were placed at the scene by independent witnesses who did not know each other or the accused prior to the incident. Thabiso's identification of Accused 2 was accepted as reliable, given his opportunity for observation and immediate identification at the parade. The evidence established that both accused acted in common purpose, being armed and participating in the murder and robbery. The circumstantial evidence, including the sequence of events...

Citation
[2021] ZAECPEHC 44
Parties
Applicant: The State; Defendant: Simthembile Ntlokwana; Defendant: Siyabulela Mraji
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 June 2021
Case Number
CC 20/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Conviction Judgment
Outcome
Both accused found guilty on counts 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Accused 1 acquitted on count 4.
Judges
M Makaula
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Attempted Murder, Identification Evidence, Common Purpose, Admissibility of Hearsay
Criminal Law Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Attempted Murder Identification Evidence Common Purpose Admissibility of Hearsay

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Simthembile Ntlokwana

Defendant

Siyabulela Mraji

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Conviction Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused were correctly identified as the perpetrators of the murder and associated crimes.
  2. 2 Whether the sworn statements of Kuhle and Lubabalo are admissible as evidence under section 3(1) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act.
  3. 3 Whether the accused acted with common purpose in committing the offences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sworn statements of Kuhle and Lubabalo were admissible as hearsay evidence under section 3(1) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as they were made freely, voluntarily, and corroborated by other witnesses. Both accused were placed at the scene by independent witnesses who did not know each other or the accused prior to the incident. Thabiso's identification of Accused 2 was accepted as reliable, given his opportunity for observation and immediate identification at the parade. The evidence established that both accused acted in common purpose, being armed and participating in the murder and robbery. The circumstantial evidence, including the sequence of events...

Court Disposition

Both accused found guilty on counts 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Accused 1 acquitted on count 4.

Orders

  • Both accused are convicted on counts 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.
  • Accused 1 is acquitted on count 4.