Mdubane v S (CA & R 97/17) [2018] ZANCHC 58 (18 May 2018)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZANCHC 58
|

|

Mdubane v S (CA & R 97/17) [2018] ZANCHC 58 (18 May 2018)

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN
CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
Case
No: CA
&
R 97/17
Heard
on: 09/02/2018
Delivered
on: 18/05/2018
In
the matter between
JABU
MDUBANE

Appellant
V
THE
STATE

Respondent
Coram:
Pakati ADJP et Stanton AJ
JUDGMENT
ON APPEAL
PAKATIADJP
[1]
The appellant, Mr Jabu
Mdubane, was arraigned in the Regional Court, Port Nolloth, for theft
of 1.8 copper cable with a mass of
521kg valued at R31 260-00, the
property in the lawful possession of Telkom alternatively being found
in possession of property
suspected to be stolen in contravention of
s 36 of the General Law Amendment Act, 62 of 1995 ("the Act").
He pleaded
not guilty and denied knowledge of the offence but was
nevertheless convicted of contravention of s 36 of the Act on 24
January
2014. On 13 March 2014 he was sentenced to seven years
imprisonment of which three years were suspended for a period of five
years
on certain conditions.
[2]
On 09 December 2014 the appellant' s application for
leave to appeal
against conviction and sentence was refused by Regional Magistrate
Huisamen but was granted leave to appeal against
conviction and
sentence by this Court on 03 November 2016, hence this appeal.
THE
GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE PRINCIPLE ON APPEAL
[3]
In his petition dated 10 December 2014 and filed on 12
December 2014
he recorded the following reasons as his grounds of appeal:
"8.1
AD SKULDIGBEVINDING
8.1.1
Die Agbare Landdros het nie die bewyslas wat op die staat rus
behoorlik in ag
geneem
nie en gevolglik die beskuldigde skuldig bevind in omstandighede waar
die Staat nie daarin geslaag het om hom van sy bewyslas
te kwyt nie.
8.1.2
Die Agbare Landdros het bevind dat die staat bo redelike
twyfel bewys het dat die applikant op 12 Desember 2012 in besit
gevind
was van verrnoedelik gesteelde goedere, naamlik koperkabels,
waarvoor die applikant nie 'n redelik verduideliking kon gee nie.
8.1.3
Die Agbare Hofhetfouteer deur nie die volgendefeite in ag te
neem nie en/of nie die waarskynlikhede en onwaarskynlikhede op te
weeg
teen die beweer feite nie:
8.1.3.1
Te bevind dat die applikant se weergawe van die gebeure en hoe
die goedere agter op sy voertuig gekom het, nie redelik moontlik waar

is nie;
8.1.3.2
Te bevind dat dit onwaarskynlik is dat die applikant so ver na
'n vreemde plek sal ry om klere te gaan haal nadat die persone

aan wie hy 'n geleentheid gegee het, genome het dat Springbok
nie baie ver is nie;
8.1.3.3
Te bevind dat dit vreemde is vir die applikant om te Port
Nolloth sy voertuig aan die persone te gee met die vertroue dat hul
sou
terugkeer na hom, en dat hy die persone vertrou het;
8.1.3.4
Te bevind dat dit onwaarskynlik en vreemd is dat die applikant
tesame met die persone daardie tyd van die nag sou terug ry, sander

om te rus of oor te slap;
8.1.3.5
Te bevind dat dit nit toevallig was dat die applikant se
voertuig aan die spesifikasies voldoen vir die optel en vervoer van
hierdie
hoeveelheid koper kabel nie
8.1.3.6
Te
bevind dat dit die applikant geweet het waarheen hul ry, en so ook
die rede waarvoor hul na Port Nolloth is, en dat dit beplan
was;
8.1.3.7
Die
applikant se weergawe te verwerp en dit as onwaarskynlik en vals te
beskou en te aanvaar;
8.1.3.8
The bevind dat die applikant se weergawe en verduideliking nie
redelik moontlik waar kan wees nie.
8.1.4
Dat daar redelike vooruitsigte op sukses is dat n Ander Hof tot n
ander bevinding
kan kom en die applikant onskuldig kan bevind, indien
die aansoek om verlof tot appel toegestaan word.
8.2
AD
VONNIS
8.2.1
Dat die vonnis van
7
jaar gevangenisstraf-waarvan 3
jaar gevangenisstraf opgeskort word vir n termyn van 5 jaar op
voorwaardes, deur die Agbare Hof opgele,
onnodig swaar en onvanpas in
die omstandighede is.
8.2.2
Dat die Agbare Hof fouteer het deur nie die Persoonlike
Omstandighede van die applikant, soos volledig voor die hof geplaas
deur
die applikant en sy regsverteenwoordiger, in ag te neem of
genoegsaam in ag te neem nie. Vera/ met verwysing van die volgende:
8.2.2.1
Die applikant is op 44 jarige leeftyd as eerste oortreder voor
die hof;
8.2.2.2
Dat die applikant oar n goeie betekking as sekuriteits beampte
beskik het en dat al sy kinders finansieel van ham ajhanklik is;
8.2.2.3
Dat hy finansiele skade ly in die bedrag van R89 000.00, synde
sy voertuig waarop beslag gele is, en welke die applikant nie weer

sal terugkry nie;
8.2.2.4
Dat die applikant die slagoffer was van fl ongelukkige
sameloop van omstandighede en die feit dat hy die verkeerde persone
vertrou
het en fl oordeelsfout begaan het op die betrokke dag.
8.2.3
Dat die Agbare Hof te veel klem gele het op die belange van
die gemeenskap en die ernstigheid van die misdryf en nie genoegsame
oorweging gegee het aan die applikant se persoonlike omstandighede
met die oog op Rehabilitasie nie.
8.2.4
Dat fl total opgeskorte vonnis, n korrektiewe vonnis of'n
vonnis in terme van Art 276(l)(i) van die Strafproseswet
-
meer
van pas sou wees in hierdie aangeleentheid, wat tot gevolg sou gehad
het om die applikant af te skrik en te weerhou van sulke
optrede in
die toekoms.
8.2.5
Dat daar redelike vooruitsigte op sukses is dat die vonnis
verminder sal word, indien die aansoek om verlof tot appel toegestaan

word.
"
[4]
In
S
v HADEBE AND OTHERS
[1]
Marais
JA held:
"Before
considering these submissions it would be as well to recall yet again
that there are well-established principles governing
the hearing of
appeals against findings of fact. In short, in the absence of
demonstrable and material misdirection by the trial
Court, its
findings of fact are presumed  to be correct and will only be
disregarded if the recorded evidence shows them to
be clearly wrong.
The reasons why this deference is shown by appellate Courts to
factual findings of the trial court are so well
known that
restatement is unnecessary.
"
THE
APPELLANT'S ADMISSIONS IN TERMS OF S 220     OF
THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ACT, 51 OF 1977
("the CPA")
[5]
It is common cause that the offence was committed
between the 12th
and 13th of December 2012. Ms De Bruyn, for the appellant, recorded
admissions in terms of s 220 of the Criminal
Procedure Act, 51 of
1977 ("the CPA"), as follows:
"Ons
erken dat die Beskuldigde die eienaar is van 'n dubbelkajuit GWM
bakkie, silwer van kleur met 'n registrasienommer BZ
217 FR GP...
Die
Beskuldigde wil verder ook erken dat op die betrokke oggend van die
voorval op die 13de van December 2012 ongeveer 01:30 die
oggend hy in
hierdie voertuig was op die R382 openbare pad vanaf Port Nolloth na
Steinkopf, dat die voertuig ongeveer 10 kilometer
voor Steinkopf deur
die polisie efgetrek is en dat die polisie agter op die dubbelkajuit
voertuig se bak koperkabel met 'n gewig
van 521 kilogram ter waarde
van R31, 260.00 gevind is en dat die polisie daarop beslag gel? het,
Edelagbagbare. Ons wens oak te
erken dat die koperdraad wat agter op
die bakkie voertuig gevind is, dieselfde koper is wat 10 kilometer
buite Port Nolloth afgesny
en gesteel was op die 12de van Desember
2012 en dat hierdie koperkabel dan die eiendom is en behoort aan
Telkom.
"
THE
EVIDENCE OF STEFANUS MARTINUS SMUTS AND CONSTABLE YVETTE ROSETTA VAN
DER POLL
[6]
Mr Stefanus Martinus Smuts,
an employee and a technician of Telkom, testified that on a Wednesday
12 December 2012 about ten kilometres
out of Port Nolloth on the R382
between Port Nolloth and Steinkopf he and other unnamed officials
discovered 6 copper cables. He
stated that the cable were telephone
connections between two towns, Eksteenfontein and Lekkersig including
farms surrounding the
areas. The theft resulted in communication
breakdown in the affected areas. The cost of the cable was R60 900-79
and the total
loss was R62 908-68. He testified that the copper cable
was recovered at the back of the bakkie of the appellant. The
quantity
found was approximately the same as the one stolen from the
scene. He testified further that it would not have been possible for

one person to commit the alleged theft.
[7]
Constable Yvette Rosetta Van der Poll, a member of the
K9 Unit of the
South African Police Services ("SAPS") stationed in
Springbok, testified that on the day in question she
received a
report from Mr Dawie Wiese concerning the theft of copper cable
around 21h00. She and her two colleagues, W/0 Saal and
another
unnamed police officer, drove about ten kilometres out of Port
Nolloth and waited at a certain spot. Around 01h35 they
spotted a
silver GWM bakkie later identified as that of the appellant, driven
at a high speed. They immediately put on the blue
lamp and also used
torches indicating to the motor vehicle to pull over but it drove
past them as they were standing alongside
the road. They pursued it
and it ultimately pulled over about 200 metres away from them. It
reversed towards their motor vehicle.
The appellant alighted and
stood next to his motor vehicle on the driver's side. The engine of
his motor vehicle was still running.
When Constable Van der Poll
asked him whether he was alone he responded that other people in his
company fled the scene and disappeared
in the dark. She said:
"Ek
kan noem dat dit baie donker die spesifieke nag was. Daar was geen
maanlig nie. Ek het op daardie stadium nie kon sien
of enige persone
in die veld gehardloop het
.
nie.
"
[8]
Constable Van der Poll testified that W/0 Saal removed
the cover at
the back of the appellant's motor vehicle and they noticed the copper
cable. When confronted about it the appellant
denied knowledge of it.
She testified further that there was no other luggage found in the
bakkie. The appellant was then apprehended.
That
concluded the State case.
THE
EVIDENCE OF THE APPELLANT
[9]
The appellant testified in his own defence and did not
call witnesses
to testify on his behalf. His version was that on the specific day he
drove from Benoni to Port Nolloth in the company
of one Amos and two
of his (Amos') acquaintances. He met his companions in Daveyton. He
initially intended to drive to Kathu but
proceeded to Springbok
because his companions needed to go to Springbok in his motor
vehicle. From Springbok they directed him
to Port Nolloth. He
remained in a tent in Port Nolloth while they borrowed his motor
vehicle to collect some clothing. They drove
away and took more than
two hours before they returned. On their return Amos was the driver
and they were on their way to Kathu.
The appellant testified that he
occupied the passenger seat while the other two took the back seat.
According to him he fell asleep.
He was woken up by the two men
seated at the back telling Amos to "press", meaning speed
off. When he turned he noticed
the blue lamp of the police motor
vehicle and told Amos to stop the motor vehicle, which he did. It is
at that stage that Amos
and the two men alighted from the motor
vehicle and fled the scene. He proceeded to the driver's seat and
reversed the motor vehicle
towards the police.
[10]
When the police confronted him about his failure to stop he explained

that he was not the driver but Amos and that his companions had fled.
When the police discovered the copper cable at the back of
the bakkie
he denied knowledge of such.
That
concluded the defence case.
[11]
The court
a
quo
highlighted what it
found as shortcomings m the State's case regarding the main count of
theft and said:
"Die
klagtes teen u is een van diefstal. Hier is geen getuienis voor
hierdie Hof dat u inderdaad self beplan het om die koperkabels
te
steel nie. Hier is geen getuienis direk of omstandigheidsgetuienis
voor die Hof dat u inderdaad die koperkabels gesteel het
nie. Die
staat het nie bewys dat u die mens rea gehad het om die kabels te
steel nie en die Staal het oak nie bewys dat die contractatio

handeling deur u plaasgevind het nie.
Die
Staat maak staat op n leerstuk van onlangse besit. Dit bepaal dat
indien u in besit gevind word van items wat onlangs gesteel
is, dan
kan die Hof u skuldig bevind aan diefstal.
Die
Staat se getuie, Mnr Ste/anus Smuts se hy was by die perseel van die
voorval op die l 2de Desember 2012 en dat dit vir horn
onmoontlik was
om te se watter tyd die kabels gesteel is. Die Hof is van mening dat
hierdie leerstuk slegs aangwend kan word indien
dit ho redelike
twyfel bewys is die tydperk wanneer dit gesteel is en in hierdie
geval is dit nit bewys nie.
GEVOLGLIK
WORD U ONSKULDIG BEV/ND OP DIE KLAGTE VAN DIEFSTAL."
[12]
Regarding s 36 of the Act the Regional Magistrate found:
"Die
alternatiwe klagte verwys na die bepalings van Artikel 36 van die
Algemene Regswysigingswet wat bepaal dat indien u in
besit gevind
word van vermoedelik gesteelde goedere en indien u nie in staat is om
voldoende rekenskap van sodanige besit te gee
nie, dank an die Hof u
skuldig bevind op hierdie wetsbepaling. Soos Mnr de Vries korrek
aangetoon het is hier 3 elemente. Eerstens
u is in besit gevind van
die goedere. Tweedens bestaan daar wel n redelike verdenking dat dit
gestelde goedere is.
Die
enigste verdere aspek waaroor hierdie Hof dan moet bevind is of u n
redelike verduideliking kan gee. Nau eerstens moet die Hof
van meet
af se dat u weergawe, u storie bei'ndruk glad nie die Hof nie, dat u
en Amos beplan om Kathu toe te ry en dan net om klere
te gaan haal
word daar n verdere 740 kilometer gery. Op u eie getuienis was dit
vroegaand toe julle in Kathu stilgehou het toe
die ander manne vir u
grvra het om die voertuig te leen en u wou dit nie aan hulle leen
nie.
U
tog vanaf Kathu na Port Nolloth word gekenmerk deur die volgende en
ek haal die woorde aan, u worry oor die afstand, die verdere
afstand
wat gery word. Amos se vir u by verskeie geleenthede u moenie worry
nie. U kom op n heeltemal vreemde plek naamlik Port
Nolloth waar u
nog nooit in u lewe was nie en u laat toe dat Amos en  ander
vreemde manne vir u net drop of aflaai by die
liggies fees en verder
alleen met u voertuig ry. Dit nadat u geen benul het waarnatoe hulle
ry nie, want u was nog nooit op Port
Nolloth nie.
Hulle
sou aanvanklik net 200 kilometer vanaf Kathu gery het en toe het
hulle
7
40 kilometer van Kathu
af gery en die heeltyd is u geworried en u argumenteer met Amos.
Daarom vind die Hof dit totaal en al onwaarskynlik
dat u dan nou u
voertuig vir hulle sal leen. U antwoord is dat hulle sou tyres gekoop
het en brandstof betaal het. So u was bereid
om dit vir hulle te
leen.
Hlerdie
argument of stelling gaan natuurlik glad nie op nie, want hulle kon
net sowel u voertuig gesteel het, veral aangesien die
lig waar u
vandaan kom in Daveyton in Benoni en daar aan die rand, die Wesrand
of die Oosrand, daar aan die Oosrand waar u is in
Benoni, daardie
grater gedeelte van die Oosrand, hoeveel voertuie daar
op
n daaglikse basis gesteel word. Daar is niks wat u verhoed het om
saam met hulle te ry nie, die aand hier in Port Nolloth. En
die
storie dat u toe afgelaai is by die liggie fees. en toe met rastas
gepraat het wat hulle eie goed gerook het en toe daai tyd
van die nag
na die see uitsig gekyk het, word nie aanvaar deur hierdie Hof nie.
As
ans nou kyk na die Artikel van die Algemene Regswysigingswet, dan kyk
ans eerstens na die goedere wat gevind is, 1.8 kilometer

telefoondraad met 'n gewig van 561 kilogram. As ek kyk na die bundel
Jatos wat ingehandig is en veral vanaf fotos 5 aan tot by
Joto 24,
25, 26, 27, 28 dan dit is dit baie duidelik dat hierdie koperkabel,
hierdie telefoondrade is van die telefoonpale af verwyder
en die H of
vind dit oak onmoontlik dat 3 manne daardie tyd van die nag hierdie
lengte draad en die gewig daarvan self kon verwyder
het. As n mens
kyk na rolle koperdraad op Joto 5 van die Joto album, met inagneming
van die gewig, is dit duidelik dat meer as
een of 2 persone benodig
sal word om een ronde van hierdie koperkabel op te tel.
"
[13]
The Regional Magistrate continued:
"Die
Hof bevind dus dat die beskuldigde wel in besit gewees het van
hierdie goedere terwyl daar 'n redelike verdenking bestaan
het dat
dit gesteelde goed is en dat die beskuldigde geen redelike
verduideliking en rekenskap kon gee van sodanige besit
nie.
Die
Hof sluit af deur te bevind dat die beskuldigde van meet af saam met
die ander 3 manne beplan het om hierdie koperkabels in
Port Nolloth
te kom laai en terug te vervoer na die Oosrand.
GEVOLGLIK
WORD DIE BESKULDIGDE SKULDIG BEV/ND AAN 'N OORTREDING VANARTIKEL36
VANWET62 VAN 1955."
ARGUMENT
ON CONVICTION IN THE HIGH COURT
[14]
Mr Van Tonder, for the
appellant, submitted that the version of the appellant is not so
improbable that it could be rejected as
false beyond reasonable
doubt. In response Ms Van Heerden, on behalf of the State, argued
that the court
a quo
correctly convicted the
appellant. However, she further argued that the Regional Magistrate
misdirected himself when he found that
the respondent did not prove
the offence of theft against the appellant. The reasons for her
submission can be summarised as follows:
14.1
The copper cable was stolen the very same night it was found in the
appellant's position having driven
from Benoni to Port Nolloth, a
distance of about 1360 kilometres;
14.2
The possibility exists that the appellant was not alone during the
theft especially considering the
evidence of Smuts, the Telkom
employee that not one person would handle the copper cables in
question. The concluded would therefore
be that he was in the company
of other people namely, Amos and two others; and
14.3
That it was never his version that he had knowledge of the copper
cable but that he was unaware that
it was stolen.
[15]
For
this assertion Ms Van Heerden relied on
S
v NDLOVU
[2]
where
Nicholas AJA had this to say:
"Where
an accused person has in his evidence given an account which is not
true, it is not for the Court to speculate about
possible defences
not advanced by the accused himself. So in a case where a person, who
has dealt with recently stolen goods, has
given an explanation which
has been rejected,
"The
Court should not
...
find on
his behalf some explanation which, might perhaps have been true, but
which he himself has not given.
"
[16]
Ms Van Heerden also relied on s 304 (2) (c) (iv) of the CPA which

provides that the court may, on review of the proceedings in the
magistrates court, give such judgment or impose such sentence
or make
such order as the magistrate's court ought to have given, imposed or
made on any matter which was before it at the trial
of the case in
question. I do not agree with this contention for the following
reasons:
16.1
The appellant's version was corroborated by Constable Van der Poll in
the following respects:
16.1.1
She was present in the police vehicle that pursued the appellant's
motor vehicle on the night in question;
16.1.2
The appellant's vehicle was driven at a very high speed at the time
the police gave chase;
16.1.3
When confronted about failure to stop his motor vehicle he explained
that he was not the driver and that
his companions fled into the
dark. Ms Van der Poll confirmed that it was dark and that she was
uncertain that she would have been
able to see the appellant's
companions when they fled from the scene when the motor vehicle
ultimately stopped;
16.1.4
She observed the brake lights, the motor vehicle reversing towards
the police vehicle and also break marks on
the road; and
16.1.5
Although she could not remember that the appellant mentioned Amos on
the day in question, she mentioned the name
of Amos in her statement.
[17]
According to Ms Van Heerden it is inconceivable that the appellant

would be misled to an extent of driving about 600 kilometres to
Springbok to collect clothing and to drive another 140 kilometres
to
Port Nolloth, considering that he was a long distance taxi driver or
that he trusted Amos and the two others with his motor
vehicle though
they were not his friends.
[18]
The issues for determination are:
(18.1)
whether the version of the appellant is reasonably possibly true;
(18.2)
whether the Regional Magistrate erred in convicting the appellant on
a charge of contravention of s 36 of the Act; and
(18.3)
whether the sentence imposed is shockingly in appropriate.
[19]
Ponnan
JA in
S
v MONYANE AND OTHERS
[3]
stated:
"This
court's powers to interfere on appeal with the findings of fact of a
trial court  are limited It has not been suggested
that the
trial court misdirected itself in any respect. In the absence of
demonstrable and material misdirection by the trial court,
its
findings of fact are presumed to be correct and will only be
disregarded if the recorded evidence shows them to be clearly
wrong
(S v Hadebe and Others 1997 (2)
SACR
641 (SCA) at 645e-f [supra]). This, in my view, is certainly not a
case in which a thorough reading of the record leaves me
in any doubt
as to the correctness of the trial court's factual findings. Bearing
in mind the advantage that a trial court has
of seeing, hearing and
appraising a witness, it is only in exceptional cases that this court
will be entitled to interfere with
a trial court's evaluation of oral
testimony (S v Francis
1991 (1) SACR 198
(A) at 204e)."
[20]
In
S
v CHABALALA
[4]
Heher
JA stated:
"The
correct approach is to weigh up all the elements which point towards
the guilt of the accused against all those which
are indicative of
his innocence, taking proper account of inherent strengths and
weaknesses, probabilities and improbabilities
on both sides and,
having done so, to decide whether the balance weighs so heavily in
favour of the State as to exclude any reasonable
doubt about the
accused's guilt."
[21]
In
S V V
[5]
Zulman JA held:
"It
is trite that there is no obligation upon an accused person, where
the State bears the onus, 'to convince the court'. If
his version is
reasonably possibly true he is entitled to his acquittal even though
his explanation is improbable. A court is not
entitled to convict
unless it is satisfied not only that the explanation is improbable
but that beyond any reasonable doubt it
is false. It is impermissible
to look at the probabilities of the case to determine whether the
accused's version is reasonably
possibly true but whether one
subjectively believes him is not the test. As pointed out in many
judgments of this Court and other
courts the test is whether there is
a reasonable possibility that the accused's evidence may be true.
"
[22]
In my view the appellant's
evidence was indeed convoluted but that does not mean that his
version is false in the face of Constable
Van der Poll's evidence
which confirms his version especially the details of what took place
at the scene. He maintained that version
throughout. In my view the
Regional Magistrate committed a misdirection when he convicted the
appellant under the circumstances.
When there is a doubt the benefit
is given to the accused. The appeal should succeed.
In
the circumstances
I
make the
following order:
1.
The appeal against conviction and sentence is upheld. The conviction
and sentence imposed by the Regional Magistrate
are set aside.
BM
PAKATI
ACTING
DEPUTY JUDGE PRESIDENT
NORTHERN
CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY
I
concur
A
STANTON
ACTING
JUDGE
NORTHERN
CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY
On
behalf of the Appellant:
ADV A V AN TONDER
Instructed
by:

LEGAL-AID SA, KIMBERLEY
On
behalf of the State:
ADV AH VAN
HEERDEN
Instructed
by:

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONs
[1]
1997
(2) SACR 641
(SCA) at 645e-f
[2]
1987
(1) PH H37 (A) at p 68
[3]
2008
(1) SACR 543
at para 15 at p547i to 548b
[4]
2003
(1) SACR 134
(SCA) at para 15
[5]
2000 (1) SACR 453
(SCA) at p 455a-c