Thamae and Another v S (A264/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 64 (21 May 2019)

Thamae and Another v S (A264/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 64 (21 May 2019)

The appeal succeeded because the state failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were joint possessors of the firearms found in the vehicle. The trial court misdirected itself by drawing inferences inconsistent with the proved facts and not excluding other reasonable inferences. There was no evidence as to who placed the firearms in the vehicle or that the appellants were aware of their presence. The requirements for joint possession, as set out in Nkosi and approved in Mbuli and Ramoba, were not met. Consequently, the convictions and sentences for both counts were set aside for the appellants and, in the interests of justice, also for accused 2 and 4.

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 64
Parties
Appellant: Tsepe Ernest Thamae; Appellant: Tseliso Simon Moloi; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 May 2019
Case Number
A264/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside for appellants and for accused 2 and 4.
Judges
Naidoo, Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Unlawful Possession of Firearms, Joint Possession, Inferential Reasoning, Onus of Proof, Minimum Sentences Act
Criminal Law Unlawful Possession of Firearms Joint Possession Inferential Reasoning Onus of Proof Minimum Sentences Act

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsepe Ernest Thamae

Appellant

Tseliso Simon Moloi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were joint possessors of the firearms found in the vehicle.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court correctly applied the rules of inferential reasoning in convicting the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions and sentences should be set aside due to insufficient evidence of joint possession.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the state failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were joint possessors of the firearms found in the vehicle. The trial court misdirected itself by drawing inferences inconsistent with the proved facts and not excluding other reasonable inferences. There was no evidence as to who placed the firearms in the vehicle or that the appellants were aware of their presence. The requirements for joint possession, as set out in Nkosi and approved in Mbuli and Ramoba, were not met. Consequently, the convictions and sentences for both counts were set aside for the appellants and, in the interests of justice, also for accused 2 and 4.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside for appellants and for accused 2 and 4.

Orders

  • The late filing of the appellants’ Heads of Argument is condoned.
  • The appeal against the convictions and sentences in respect of counts 1 and 2 is upheld.