Shongwe v S (A171/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 633 (10 October 2019)

Shongwe v S (A171/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 633 (10 October 2019)

The court found that the evidence did not substantiate the finding that the appellant was not the owner of the structure on stand BB10. The third state witness confirmed that the appellant was at least a co-owner, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the state discharged its onus of proof regarding intention to misrepresent. The document declaring ownership was provided to assist the complainant in obtaining a liquor licence, not as a fraudulent misrepresentation. The complainant was aware that the appellant did not possess a title deed. The evidence regarding misrepresentation was insufficient and flimsy. Consequently, the state failed to prove all elements of fraud beyond reasonable...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 633
Parties
Appellant: Gregory Mandlakavise Shongwe; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2019
Case Number
A171/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Leave Granted on Petition
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction set aside.
Judges
AC Basson, JJ Strijdom
Legal Topics
Fraud, Misrepresentation, Intention, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Fraud Misrepresentation Intention Onus of Proof

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory Mandlakavise Shongwe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Leave Granted on Petition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant intentionally misrepresented ownership of the property to the complainant.
  2. 2 Whether the state proved all elements of fraud beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant had the required intention to defraud.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not substantiate the finding that the appellant was not the owner of the structure on stand BB10. The third state witness confirmed that the appellant was at least a co-owner, creating reasonable doubt as to whether the state discharged its onus of proof regarding intention to misrepresent. The document declaring ownership was provided to assist the complainant in obtaining a liquor licence, not as a fraudulent misrepresentation. The complainant was aware that the appellant did not possess a title deed. The evidence regarding misrepresentation was insufficient and flimsy. Consequently, the state failed to prove all elements of fraud beyond reasonable...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The conviction is set aside and replaced with the order: 'The accused is found not guilty.'