Saohatse and Others v S (A18/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 62 (3 February 2021)

Saohatse and Others v S (A18/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 62 (3 February 2021)

The court found that the trial court did not misdirect itself in accepting the evidence of the single witness, Mr Lehoko, whose account was corroborated by the post-mortem report and other evidence. The trial court's findings on credibility and fact were not plainly wrong and were supported by the record. The appellants' versions were not reasonably possibly true and were correctly rejected. Regarding sentence, the court held that the trial court over-emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the interests of the community at the expense of the third appellant's personal circumstances, particularly his age (16 years) and status as a first offender. The third appellant was a suitable...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 62
Parties
Appellant: Boy Boy Jacob Saohatse; Appellant: Samuel Tsheolo Faku; Appellant: Oarabile Kenny Saohatse; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2021
Case Number
A18/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Sebokeng Regional Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence for third appellant upheld.
Judges
MNGQIBISA-THUSI, MNYOVU
Legal Topics
Murder, Single Witness Evidence, Minimum Sentences, Juvenile Offender, Correctional Supervision
Criminal Law Murder Single Witness Evidence Minimum Sentences Juvenile Offender Correctional Supervision

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boy Boy Jacob Saohatse

Appellant

Samuel Tsheolo Faku

Appellant

Oarabile Kenny Saohatse

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Sebokeng Regional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants assaulted and killed the deceased.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in accepting the evidence of a single witness over that of the defence.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed on the third appellant, a juvenile, was appropriate under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court did not misdirect itself in accepting the evidence of the single witness, Mr Lehoko, whose account was corroborated by the post-mortem report and other evidence. The trial court's findings on credibility and fact were not plainly wrong and were supported by the record. The appellants' versions were not reasonably possibly true and were correctly rejected. Regarding sentence, the court held that the trial court over-emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the interests of the community at the expense of the third appellant's personal circumstances, particularly his age (16 years) and status as a first offender. The third appellant was a suitable...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence for third appellant upheld.

Orders

  • The appellants' appeal against conviction is dismissed.
  • The sentence of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'The third accused is sentenced to correctional supervision in terms of s276(1)(h).'