Shole v The State [2015] ZASCA 123 (17 September 2015)

Shole v The State [2015] ZASCA 123 (17 September 2015)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court and full court correctly accepted the evidence of Mr Phefo as reliable and truthful, with no actual delay in reporting the confession. The cumulative effect of the evidence of Mr Phefo and Mr Moetaesi established the guilt of the first appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the second appellant, the court held that the fingerprint and palm print evidence was fresh and found in circumstances that excluded any reasonable inference other than guilt. The explanations provided by the second appellant for the presence of his prints were not reasonably possibly true and could safely be rejected. The appeals of both appellants were...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 123
Parties
Appellant: Kabelo Melvin Shole; Appellant: Jafta Bushy Lekena; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2015
Case Number
20716/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Court, North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Shongwe, Theron, Majiedt
Legal Topics
Confession Evidence, Fingerprint Evidence, Circumstantial Evidence, Credibility of Witnesses, Housebreaking and Robbery, Murder
Criminal Law Confession Evidence Fingerprint Evidence Circumstantial Evidence Credibility of Witnesses Housebreaking and Robbery Murder

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kabelo Melvin Shole

Appellant

Jafta Bushy Lekena

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Court, North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence of confession made to witnesses was properly admitted and sufficient to establish the guilt of the first appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the palm and fingerprint evidence against the second appellant justified the inference of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. 3 Whether the explanations provided by the appellants for the presence of their prints and alleged confession were reasonably possibly true.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court and full court correctly accepted the evidence of Mr Phefo as reliable and truthful, with no actual delay in reporting the confession. The cumulative effect of the evidence of Mr Phefo and Mr Moetaesi established the guilt of the first appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding the second appellant, the court held that the fingerprint and palm print evidence was fresh and found in circumstances that excluded any reasonable inference other than guilt. The explanations provided by the second appellant for the presence of his prints were not reasonably possibly true and could safely be rejected. The appeals of both appellants were...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.