Seanego and Another v S (A148/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 753 (14 November 2017)

Seanego and Another v S (A148/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 753 (14 November 2017)

The appeal court found that the trial court had correctly approached the evidence holistically, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of both the State and defence cases. The identification evidence of the witnesses was found to be credible and reliable, despite minor contradictions, and the trial court's findings were not vitiated by irregularity or clear error. The court accepted the State's concession that the second appellant should not have been convicted of possession of firearm and ammunition, as the evidence did not support those charges. The convictions of both appellants on murder and robbery were confirmed, as the evidence established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 753
Parties
Appellant: Felanimeshack Seanego; Appellant: Joseph Makhubela; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2017
Case Number
A148/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Only
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of convictions for murder and robbery; convictions and sentences for possession of firearm and ammunition against the second appellant set aside.
Judges
C Pretorius, VV Tlhapi, TP Mudau
Legal Topics
Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Illegal Possession of Firearm, Illegal Possession of Ammunition, Identity Parade Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Illegal Possession of Firearm Illegal Possession of Ammunition Identity Parade Evidence 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felanimeshack Seanego

Appellant

Joseph Makhubela

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding the State proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court correctly rejected the appellants' versions as not reasonably possibly true.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants received a fair trial in light of alleged contradictions and irregularities.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court had correctly approached the evidence holistically, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of both the State and defence cases. The identification evidence of the witnesses was found to be credible and reliable, despite minor contradictions, and the trial court's findings were not vitiated by irregularity or clear error. The court accepted the State's concession that the second appellant should not have been convicted of possession of firearm and ammunition, as the evidence did not support those charges. The convictions of both appellants on murder and robbery were confirmed, as the evidence established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of convictions for murder and robbery; convictions and sentences for possession of firearm and ammunition against the second appellant set aside.

Orders

  • The convictions on counts 1, 2, 4 and 5 for the first appellant are confirmed.
  • The convictions on counts 1 and 2 for the second appellant are confirmed.