Godloza and Another v S (CCT 306/22) [2025] ZACC 24 (5 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Godloza and Another v S
Citation: [2025] ZACC 24
Date: 5 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its examination of constitutional rights concerning wrongful convictions and the implications of unequal treatment in the criminal justice system. The Constitutional Court addressed significant questions about the applicability of the cautionary rule in convictions based on the evidence of a single witness and the implications of disparate treatment among co-accused. The impacts of these determinations extend beyond the parties involved, potentially affecting public confidence in the judicial system and raising larger issues about the fairness of trial processes.

Cases Cited

• R v Mokoena 1932 OPD 79
• S v Godloza (unreported judgment of the Eastern Cape Regional Court, Mthatha, Case No RCUM144/2017)
• S v Grifhs [2021] ZASCA 112
• Lehloka v S [2022] ZAWCHC 34
• S v Dzukuda; S v Tshilo [2000] ZACC 16
• S v Boesak [2000] ZACC 25
• S v Molaudzi [2015] ZACC 20
• Metcash Trading Ltd v TIBC [2010] ZACC 1
• S v Tuta [2022] ZACC 19

Legislation Cited

• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (various sections)
• Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
• Magistrates’ Court Act 32 of 1944
• Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013

Rules of Court Cited

• None specifically mentioned.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The Constitutional Court considered the appeals of the applicants, Zolani Godloza and Sibulele Mthetho, who contested their murder convictions stemming from the Regional Court. The Court granted leave to appeal, primarily focusing on the misapplication of the cautionary rule regarding single witness evidence in criminal trials. This ruling demonstrated the judiciary's responsibility to prevent wrongful convictions and ensure equal treatment under the law for similar cases.

Key Issues

• The applicability of the cautionary rule in cases relying on single witness testimony.
• The significance of ensuring equivalent treatment for co-accused in criminal trials.
• The right of an accused person to a fair trial including the right to appeal.

Held

The Constitutional Court found that the first instance court had erred in applying the cautionary rule, thereby infringing the constitutional rights of the applicants. The Court granted leave to appeal, set aside the prior decisions and remitted the matter to the High Court for consideration, ideally in conjunction with the appeal of their co-accused.

THE FACTS

The applicants, Zolani Godloza and Sibulele Mthetho, were convicted of murder for the unlawful killing of Thulani Ntsikini, based primarily on the testimony of a single witness, Kwanele Bavu. This witness indicated that he saw the applicants and their co-accused stab the deceased during a confrontation in Mthatha. The defence argued that the Regional Court incorrectly applied the cautionary rule when accepting the witness's evidence, which was inconsistent and contradicted by other testimonies.

After their convictions, the applicants sought various avenues for appeal, including petitions to the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal, both of which were initially denied. They highlighted the co-accused's successful appeal as a significant factor distinguishing their situation.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with addressing several key issues:

1. Whether the cautionary rule had been appropriately applied given reliance on single witness evidence.
2. Whether the treatment of the applicants differed unjustifiably compared to their co-accused, undermining their rights to a fair trial and equality under the law.
3. The extent of the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction over decisions made by the Supreme Court of Appeal regarding appeals against individuals convicted based on similar evidence.

ANALYSIS

The Court's analysis began with recognition of the cautionary rule as it pertains to single witness testimony, emphasizing that such evidence requires careful scrutiny before being deemed reliable enough for conviction. The potential for wrongful conviction necessitated the Court's intervention to uphold constitutional protections regarding fair trials.

The ruling also underscored the importance of equal treatment within the judicial process, particularly where similar facts and circumstances exist between co-accused. The failure to uphold equitable treatment not only impacts individual cases but threatens public confidence in the legal system.

In seeking to correct these disparities, the Court held that the applicants' rights to a fair trial and the absence of arbitrary deprivation of freedom were significant constitutional issues warranting its jurisdiction, particularly in light of the systemic variances found in the handling of similar appeals.

REMEDY

The Court granted leave to appeal, characterized by the following key orders:

1. The previous decisions of the Supreme Court of Appeal regarding the applicants' applications for leave to appeal were set aside.
2. The matter was remitted to the High Court, where the applicants' appeal would ideally be considered alongside that of their co-accused, Mr. Lungisa Grifhs, facilitating a more coherent judicial approach to similar cases.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment established several important legal principles:

1. The need for the careful application of the cautionary rule regarding single witness evidence in criminal trials, emphasizing a protective approach to prevent wrongful convictions.
2. The paramount importance of ensuring equal treatment and fairness within the judicial process, particularly regarding co-accused in the same criminal matter.
3. The jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court is engaged when potential breaches arise concerning the rights to a fair trial, due process, and protection from arbitrary deprivation of freedom as outlined in the Constitution.

This case illustrates the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional rights and reinforcing equitable treatment within the criminal justice system while addressing systemic flaws that may lead to injustices.