SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy


IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
[EASTERN CAPE DIVISION: MTHATHA]

CASE NO. CC06/2025

In the matter between:

THE STATE

Vs

SIPHO TOLE MDEKAZI Accused
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
JOLWANA J

[1] On 3 May 2024 Mr Mahlubandile Churchill Mdani (the deceased) was at his
homestead with his wife a t Cabazana Location in Mt Ayliff when he was shot and
killed by unknown gunmen one of whom was armed with a rifle. The accused was
charged for the murder of the deceased and the related charges. He pleaded not
guilty to the charges and disclosed that his defence was that of an alibi in that on the
day he was alleged to have committed the murder, he was in Cape Town. The
charges with which the accused was charged and to which he pleaded not guilty
were housebreaking with intent to commit an offence, the mu rder of the deceased
and the unlawful possession of a firearm, to wit, a rifle.
\_ o,,,,
'\: ~1'
-. ,,,.,; • ~

[2] The first State witness was Mrs Mdani who testified that the deceased was her
husband. On 3 May 2024 she was in the bedroom of their homestead at Cabazana
Location in Mt Ay liff with the deceased. It was after 18:00 and they were watching
television. The deceased had just returned from hospital where he had undergone
an operation. He was not well, with only one leg that was working. She testified that
before the deceased was discharged from hospital there was an incident in which
the deceased’s two nephews were attacked. One was shot and killed and the other
one ran away and returned to Cape Town. There were therefore problems within the
family of the deceased when the shootin g incident in which the deceased was killed
occurred.

[3] Having just been discharged from hospital, the deceased was not able to do
anything on his own and was under her care and assistance with basic things like
eating. Just before the incident the decea sed had asked for a yoghurt and was on
his bed eating it and some of it had spilled next to their bed. She went out to fetch a
bucket with a damp cloth and cleaned the spill. She then went out again to throw
away the water. Because it was winter, it was al ready dark and the electric lights in
the homestead were on. As she went out to spill the water, she saw a person whom,
at first glance, she thought it was her son who had not yet returned from work. She
quickly realized that the said person was not her so n because of his clothing and his
height. She became suspicious and quickly went back inside with the bucket and
closed the door which easily locked with a latch. After locking the door, she heard
the door handle being opened but she had locked it as a res ult of which the door did
not open. She then heard two gunshots being fired at the door. However, the door
was not penetrated by the bullets.

[4] Further shots were fired at the window. At this stage she could tell that the shots

[4] Further shots were fired at the window. At this stage she could tell that the shots
were fired from different firearms. The windows had no burglar proofing as they had
recently been changed. The bedroom window was shattered and the blinds fell. She
ran and hid in the bathroom adjoining the bedroom. The deceased had rolled over to
the other side of the bed and was on the floor. She was able to see what was
happening in the bedroom from the bathroom and some cartridges landed in the
bathroom. She could hear that the assailants were inside the bedroom and they

continued shooting. She did not know how they gained entr y into the bedroom but
she assumed that they used the shattered bedroom window as the door was still
locked. The bedroom window as about 1.5 meters in length and width. While still
hiding in the bathroom, she could see that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood.
She then heard the door being opened from inside with the assailants apparently
exiting.

[5] Confused and in shock, she remained in the bathroom for a few minutes. She
then heard the assailants re -entering the bedroom and they uttered the words “sure
sure”. She could tell that it was not just one assailant. She was afraid and remained
hiding in the bathroom. At some stage she thought that they had left and she went to
her phone and called the neighbours whispering as she was not certain that the
assailants had actually gone. The neighbours and other members of the community
arrived and called the police who then arrived about an hour later.

[6] Under cross-examination Mrs Mdani testified that her homestead has a house in
which her bedroom is located. The bedroom door opens into a verandah which is the
only access to the bedroom. The shots were fired through the bedroom window. In
relation to her evidence that there was a family dispute, she testified that the
accused was not a member of the deceas ed’s family and she had never seen him
before the incident. The attackers were unknown to her. When she saw the person
she saw when she was going out to throw away water, she was about six meters
from him and she could tell that the said person was unknown to her. What raised
her suspicions when she saw this person was that not only was this person a
stranger but also she heard the sound of a weapon which she assumed was a
firearm. However, she did not notice any firearm carried by this person when she
retreated back inside the bedroom. At no stage was she able to see any other
person other than the one person she saw when she was going out to spill the water.

person other than the one person she saw when she was going out to spill the water.
It was put to her that the accused denied being involved in the shooting incident and
that, on 3 May 2024 he was at the Promenade Dischem Pharmacy (Dischem
Phamarcy) in Cape Town at 11:49 before midday after which he went home in Delft.
Mrs Mdani testified that she was not even aware how the accused was implicated in
the killing of her husband.

[7] The next witness was sergeant Nongogo. She testified that she was stationd at
Mt Ayliff Police Station. On 3 May 2024 she received a report of a shooting incident
at Cabazana Location in Mt Ayliff from her relief commander. She was doing patrol
duties at the time. She and her colleagues, constables Nkosi and Hlanekela
proceeded to the Mdani homestead. When they got there, community members were
already there inside the yard. They were shown where the body of the deceased was
and told what had happened. The me mbers of the community were gathered along
the fence and others were near another structure, not where the body of the
deceased was. As she entered the bedroom, she saw some cartridges and some
blood. As she proceeded further into the bedroom, she saw the deceased lying on
the other side of the bed on the floor. She noticed that the bedroom window was
broken. She also entered into the bathroom and saw further empty cartridges. As
they were cordoning off the crime scene, they saw further cartridges outside t he
house. She then phoned the other stakeholders including members from the Local
Criminal Record Centre (LCRC), the detectives, the Emergency Medical Services
and the forensic unit.

[8] The State called the investigating officer constable Motsokoane. He testified that
he visited the crime scene and the LCRC officers also visited the crime scene
including a fingerprint expert. He later received a report from LCRC to the effect that
finger prints which had been found at the crime scene had matched the fing erprints
of the accused which were in the database of the LCRC. That is how the accused
was linked to the case. During the investigation, he became aware that the accused
was saying that on the date of the incident, he was in Cape Town. He followed up
that information and proceeded to the Dischem Pharmacy in Cape Town which
accused allegedly visited on the day of the incident. The legal representative of the

accused allegedly visited on the day of the incident. The legal representative of the
accused had brought documents during a bail application which suggested that the
accused was in Cape Town at Dischem Pharmacy at the Promenade on 3 May
2024. He went to the Promenade Mall Dischem Pharmacy and met the store
manager, Mr Donald. He asked Mr Donald to view the CCTV recordings of the 3 May
2024. Mr Donald told him that they no longer had the recordings of that date. He
then showed Mr Donald the documents that had been submitted by the accused’s
legal representative. Mr Donald referred him to a certain Mr Mark. He had some
difficulties with the said document as it reflected the name of Mr Si pho Mdekazi

which are the names of the accused. That document also described the person who
had been seen and attended to at Dischem Pharmacy as having been an african
female.

[9] After the accused was arrested, his girlfriend sent an envelope which had th e
details of the accused and had a Dischem Pharmacy stamp. He enquired at the said
Dischem Pharmacy if there was any other recording or register showing the
accused’s presence at that Pharmacy. There was none. He was not able to speak to
Mr Mark to whom h e had been referred by Mr Donald as he was reported to be on
leave. The envelop that was sent by the accused’s girlfriend was from Dischem
Pharmacy and had the accused’s names. He asked the accused’s girlfriend what
was inside the envelop and she said it had nothing. She also sent a certified copy of
the identity document of the accused which she said the accused had personally
gone to Delft Police Station and had it certified as a true copy of the original on the
date of the incident. He testified that th e accused had not said any of the things his
girlfriend was saying. He had only said that on the date of the incident, he was
applying for employment. The issue of the accused being at Dischem Pharmacy
came from his girlfriend. Constable Motsokoane testified that on the day of his arrest,
the accused was alone at his home at No.7 […] G[...] Crescent in Delft, Cape Town.
Accused stayed alone at that address. When they went to his girlfriend for the
accused to leave his keys with her, she confirmed that she was hi s girlfriend. He
asked her where the accused was on the date of the incident. After reflecting on the
question she said he was around in the Delft area.

[10] Under cross -examination, constable Motsokoane testified that he and his
colleagues left for Cape T own on 17 September 2024 and arrested accused on 18
September 2024. They went to Cape Town as two teams and went to different
directions with the tracing team going straight to the accused’s place of residence.

directions with the tracing team going straight to the accused’s place of residence.
He was later phoned by that team and was told that the accused had been found.
They arranged to meet at Delft Police Station with the team that arrested the
accused. He interviewed the accused at Delft Police Station. He told him what crime
he had been arrested for. The accused told him that on the d ate of the incident he
was applying for a job. He was not in Cape Town when the information about the
accused having been at Dischem Pharmacy was brought to their attention.

[11] He denied that when he met the accused, the accused told him to go to
Dischem Pharmacy and he refused. He emphasized that the accused having told
him about Dischem Pharmacy when he was arrested was simply not true. The
accused told him that he was applying for a job and that he did not have any proof of
that. They were on the way t o the Eastern Cape when his girlfriend sent him a
certified copy of the accused’s identity document which appeared to have been
certified as a true copy of the original on 3 May 2024. They came back to the
Eastern Cape with the accused on 19 September 2024. He went back to Cape Town
on 3 February 2025 for purposes of viewing the CCTV footage at Dischem
Pharmacy. This was after receiving the documents which suggested that the
accused was at Dischem Pharmacy, Promenade on the date of the incident.

[12] The ne xt witness for the State was warrant officer Sefoloko. His evidence was
that he is attached to the Provincial Crime Scene Management Unit. His extensive
qualifications are not in dispute, save to mention that those qualifications include a
variety of areas including collection of fingerprint evidence, fingerprint analysis and
comparison. He testified that at about midnight on 4 May 2024, he attended a crime
scene at Cabazana Location in Mt Ayliff at the homestead of the deceased. He
documented the crime sce ne through photographs and collected fingerprint
evidence. He found identification prints from the inside of the bedroom door just
above the door handle. He developed the prints using a yellow florescent powder
together with a blue light also known as the crime light and the yellow goggles. He
handed up as an exhibit, a disc in which the prints in a digital format were captured.

[13] On 25 September 2024 he received prints from sergeant Motsokoane in an
SAP192 form with the names of the accused. These prin ts had been taken for
comparison purposes. He compared those prints with the prints from the crime

comparison purposes. He compared those prints with the prints from the crime
scene. He found that the prints from the crime scene and the prints from the
SAP192 received from the investigating officer corresponded. On 28 May 2024 he
had taken the prints he had collected from the crime scene and put them into their
Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) system which he described as a
repository of all fingerprints of people that had been convicted of crime before. The
fingerprints from the crime scene matched fingerprints number 2000LTJ 358 which

belonged to a person with the names Mr Sipho Thole Mdekazi with the surnames
Magazi, Mdekazi and Tole. He contacted the investigating officer who took
fingerprints from the accused on 25 September 2024 on the SAP192 form referred to
earlier. These prints corresponded with the prints from the crime scene and the
prints that were on the AFIS system with the result that all three sets of fingerprints
corresponded.

[14] On 9 April 2025 he received another SAP192 form with fingerprints which were
obtained from the accused for court purposes of preparing a court chart. He
prepared a court chart which he also handed up as an exhibit. He testified that photo
1 on the court chart is a ph otographic enlargement of the crime scene print whereas
photo 2 is a photographic enlargement of the prints obtained from the accused on 9
April 2025. They were both enlarged to the same size. He marked seven of the
ridge characteristics all of which corr esponded in respect of type, size, direction,
place and position. He explained that the seven points are sufficient to prove the
identity of a person beyond reasonable doubt. He testified that the seven points were
as follows. The first point is a bifurca tion which is a single ridge that splits into two
ridges. Points two to six are the beginning or end of the ridge. Lastly, number seven
represents a bifurcation which is also a single ridge that splits into two ridges. He
testified that even before he fini shed testifying and with the concurrence of the
accused and his legal representative, he obtained prints from the accused which he
also compared and found them corresponding. This was done to ensure that the
person before court to whom the fingerprints evi dence is said to relate is the correct
person as he has never personally seen the accused before. Warrant officer
Sefoloko further testified that no two persons have the same fingerprints. He
therefore concluded that the fingerprints he got from the Cabaza na crime scene at

therefore concluded that the fingerprints he got from the Cabaza na crime scene at
about midnight on 4 May 2024 belonged to the accused. The cross -examination that
ensured did not take the matter any further.

[15] The medico-legal post-mortem report compiled by Dr Nkanyuza was admitted as
part of the evidence by agreeme nt with the defence. Dr Nkanyuza made the
following chief post mortem findings: a gunshot entry wound on the lateral aspect of
the left side of the chest; a gunshot entry wound on the left side of the chest; a
fracture of the ribs 5/6 and 8 on the right of the thoracic cage; a gunshot wound on

the liver and a gunshot wound on the right lung. He concluded that the cause of
death was gunshot chest-hypovolemic shock. Thereafter the state closed its case.

[16] The defence opened its case with the accused testi fying in his defence. His
evidence was that he ordinarily resided at no.7 […] G[...] Crescent, Delft in Cape
Town which is his mother’s house. His rural home is at Xolobe Location in the district
of Tsomo. He started residing in the Western Cape in October 2003 and worked as a
general worker. He started working under the employ of ZARA as a porter at Groote
Schuur Hospital on 8 May 2024. At the time of his arrest, he was still working as a
porter at Groote Schuur Hospital. He testified that he was in Cape Town o n 3 May
2024 when he was alleged to have killed the deceased. He was at Dischem
Pharmacy in Cape Town on 3 May 2024. On that day he went to Dischem Pharmacy
to receive an injection which was a precondition for him to start working at Groote
Schuur Hospital. He was assisted at Dischem Pharmacy after 14:00 towards 15:00.
Thereafter he went home where he remained for the rest of that day. When he was
attended to at Dischem Pharmacy, he submitted his details as Sipho Mdekazi and
his age as being 42 years old as well as his address. He also indicated his gender as
a male person.

[17] With reference to a document which was said to have been obtained by his legal
representative during bail proceedings, the accused testified that the said document
was issued for him by Dischem Pharmacy. It was given to him and he took it to his
place of employment for him to be employed. The copies that were before court were
obtained while he was already in custody. However, he did not know how those
documents got to be submitted in court. His previous attorney had indicated that he
would obtain proof that he was in Cape Town. The accused further testified that
when he was arrested on 18 September 2024 he was at home and was told his

when he was arrested on 18 September 2024 he was at home and was told his
constitutional rights and he was given an oppor tunity to explain himself. The police
who arrested him asked him if he knew Mt Ayliff and he told them that he did not
know it. He was then told that he was suspected of having stabbed a person to death
with a knife in Mt Ayliff. He was told that the said stabbing incident occurred on 3
May 2024.

[18] He testified that his response was that he was never in Mt Ayliff and he never
went there and stabbed anyone. The police told him that he was lying. He testified
that he did not give the police any other resp onse beyond telling them that he was
never there and that he did not know anything concerning the alleged stabbing
incident. The police then took him to Delft Police Station for further questioning. On
arrival at the police station, the police asked him wh ere he was on 3 May 2024 and
he told them that he was in Cape Town. He was told that he was suspected of
having stabbed a person in Mount Ayliff. He was charged with murder and told that
he was being detained. The murder charge was mentioned both at the ti me of his
arrest at home and at the police station. On both occasions he was told that he had
killed a person with a knife. He was shocked when he was told that he had killed a
person with a firearm during court appearances in the magistrates’ court. When he
was asked about having stabbed a person to death, he told the police that he did not
even know where Mt Ayliff is.

[19] He met constable Motsokoane for the first time at about 13:00 at Delft Police
Station after his arrest. Constable Motsokoane told hi m that he was suspected of
stabbing a person in Mt Ayliff in the Eastern Cape. He denied being in Mt Ayliff,
however, the police did not want to listen to him despite him telling them that he was
in Cape Town at the time of the incident. He was then detain ed and on 20
September 2024 at about 04:00 in the morning he was transported to the Eastern
Cape. Before he was taken to the Eastern Cape, his girlfriend had arrived with things
that showed that he was at Dischem Pharmacy. He asked the police to go to
Dischem Pharmacy with him to view video footage. However, constable Motsokoane
said that they were going to do what they wanted, not what he wanted. As a result,
they did not take him to Dischem Pharmacy. He testified that this conversation took

they did not take him to Dischem Pharmacy. He testified that this conversation took
place on 20 S eptember 2024 before they departed for the Eastern Cape and they
first went to a garage. He testified that he did not know how his fingerprints got to be
found at the door at the crime scene as he was in Cape Town on that day. He had
never been in Mt Ayliff in his life before his arrest.

[20] Under cross -examination, the accused testified that while he was aware that
there are flights from Cape Town to the Eastern Cape, he has never used a flight to
fly to the Eastern Cape. He was shocked when the expert wi tness, warrant officer

Sefoloko said that he found his finger prints at the crime scene when he was in Cape
Town. He confirmed that the address mentioned by warrant officer Sefoloko being
no.7[…] G[...] Crescent, Delft in Cape Town was his address. He confirme d that he
was once arrested. He testified that when he went to Dischem Pharmacy, a file was
opened for him and his names were entered into the registers. He disputed
constable Motsokoane’s evidence that there was no record of him having been
registered there saying he went there with his identity document. He arrived at the till
at that Dischem Pharmacy at 11:50. He left after 13:00 to 14:00 due to the que that
was long. When it was put to him that according to the document submitted in court
on his behalf as proof that he was there, the consultation with him was closed at
12:06, he testified that there were two ques. He had to first get a slip at the till and
thereafter go to que for medication.

[21] Accused further testified that before the police left Cap e Town with him, his
girlfriend brought the slip and a brown envelope containing the things he had gone to
buy at Dischem Pharmacy. He did not know about the fact that the document he had
submitted as proof that he was at Dischem Pharmacy indicated that th e nurse had
attended a female person saying he did not know about a female person as he
personally went there on 3 May 2024. He added that the documents he submitted at
work which were the same documents he had obtain at Dischem Pharmacy did not
refer to a female person. He further said that the document that refers to a female
person did not have his identity number. He said that the document that would have
his correct details was at work. On being asked some clarity seeking questions by
the court, the accused testified that he had told his legal representative about having
been arrested in Cape Town for stabbing a person in Mt Ayliff and hearing for the
first time when he appeared in court in Mt Ayliff about the said person having been

first time when he appeared in court in Mt Ayliff about the said person having been
shot dead. He also said that his girlfriend gave him the documents proving his
presence in Cape Town on 3 May 2024 before the 20 September 2024. Thereafter
the case for the accused was closed.

[22] The evidence relating to the events of the 3 May 2024 at the deceased’s
homestead at or after 18:00 leading to the fatal shooting of the deceased was largely
common cause or was not seriously contested. Similarly, with the evidence of the
sounding of the alarm, the arrival of the members of the community and the arrival of

the dif ferent units of the police and the roles that they played in collecting crime
scene evidence was not seriously contested. The evidence of the arrival of the
fingerprint expert and how he collected the evidence, the methods used and his
comparison and analysis of the fingerprints he found at the crime scene was also not
contested. Because of the fact that the only evidence linking the accused to the
crimes that were committed on 3 May 2024 at the Mdani homestead at Cabazana
Location was the fingerprint evidence of the expert, I consider it necessary to refer to
some of the evidence of warrant officer Sofoloko, even if I do so briefly as I have
tried to capture some of it hereinbefore.

[23] His evidence was that at midnight on 4 May 2024 he arrived at the cri me scene
and documented it including taking crime scene photographs. He also found
identifiable fingerprints which he captured digitally. It should be noted that he arrived
at the crime scene just over five hours after the incident. On 28 May 2024 he entered
the prints he found at the crime scene into the Automated Fingerprints Identification
System (the AFIS) which he described as a repository of the fingerprints of people
that had been previously convicted. Some of the prints from the crime scene
matched or corresponded with fingerprint number 2000LTJ358. This fingerprint
belonged to a person whose names included the known names of the accused and
his address according to the AFIS system was no.7 […] G[...] Crescent, Delft in Cape
Town, which was the address o f the accused. It must be noted that this was the
address at which the accused was arrested on 18 September 2024.

[24] On 25 September 2024 warrant officer Sefoloko received prints from constable
Motsokoane, the investigating officer on SAP192 form which h ad the names of the
accused. These prints had been taken for comparison purposes. He compared the
prints from the crime scene with the prints he received from constable Motsokoane.

prints from the crime scene with the prints he received from constable Motsokoane.
The prints from the SAP192 form corresponded with those he had picked up f rom
the crime scene. On 9 April 2025 he received another SAP192 form which had been
obtained for court purposes and to enable him to prepare a court chart. He prepared
the court chart by photographic enlargement of the print from the crime scene and
the prints obtained from the accused and contained on SAP192 form dated 9 April
2025 to the same size. He then marked the seven ridge characteristics of the print
from the crime scene and those obtained from the accused. They all corresponded in

type, size, direction, place and position. He concluded this aspect of his evidence by
saying that seven ridge characteristics are sufficient to prove the identity of the
person beyond reasonable doubt and that no two persons have the same
fingerprints. Therefore, some of the prints he picked up at the crime scene in this
matter belong to the accused.

[25] This is more or less the sum total of the case of the State against the accused.
This brings me to the legal position regarding the opinion evidence of a fingerprint
expert. In Nala1 the court explained the legal position as follows:

“It appears from the judgment of Kennedy J that the members of the Court
were able upon examination of the enlargements to determine the existence
of some, but not all of the points of ide ntity. The trial Court was however,
correct in its approach to opinion evidence given by a finger print expert. The
Court is not called upon to determine the existence or otherwise of points of
identity, inasmuch as special knowledge and skill (and, poss ibly, special
equipment) are required to undertake the necessary comparison. Where the
trial court investigates the expert’s evidence regarding points of identity it
does so, not in order to satisfy itself that the expert’s opinion as to the identity
of the disputed finger print may safely be relied upon. If the Court is itself able
to discern all the points of identity relied upon by the expert, it will no doubt
more readily hold that the opinion of the expert may safely be relied upon than
in a case whe re e.g., it is quite unable to discern any of the points of identity
relied upon.”

[26] The evidence of the accused was that he was nowhere near the crime scene on
the date of the incident and that he had never been to Mt Ayliff before his arrest. He
was at Dischem Pharmacy, Promenade Mall in Cape Town on 3 May 2024. His
evidence was that he had told the investigating officer on the date of his arrest that

evidence was that he had told the investigating officer on the date of his arrest that
he was at that Pharmacy on that date and requested him to go to that Pharmacy to
view the CCTV footag e. He testified that the investigating officer refused to do so.
The basis on which the investigating officer would have refused to do this was

1 S v Nala 1965(4) SA 360 (AD) at 362 C-E

unclear as at that stage, they had not obtained any of the fingerprints contained in
the SAP192 forms from the a ccused. On the other hand, the investigating officer
testified that the accused never said anything about being at the Dischem Pharmacy
on that date. He had told the police that he was busy making an application for a job
and that he had documents at home to prove it. They went back to the home of the
accused at no.7[…] G[...] Street, Delft. However, no documents could be found.

[27] The investigating officer further testified that the documents relied upon by the
accused to prove that he was at Dischem Phar macy on that day were obtained by
his erstwhile legal representative. He went to that Pharmacy and unfortunately no
CCTV footage could be found due to the fact that it had been sometime since the 3
May 2024 when he went there on 3 February 2025. No other d ocuments or evidence
of the accused having been there was found. It is difficult to readily accept that those
documents that had been obtained for bail application purposes were from that
Dischem Pharmacy. It is rather concerning that none of them are in a letter heard
from that Pharmacy or contained any emblem or signage of that Pharmacy but that
is the least of the problems with those documents. There are other problems with the
document relied upon. It is the fact that the person who was seen at that Pha rmacy
is described as having been a 42 year old African female. The accused sought to
distance himself from this document pointing out that he had gone to Dischem
Pharmacy to obtain documents that he needed to submit at work at Groote Schuur
Hospital where he was applying for a job.

[28] This was not without its own difficulties too. First, the evidence of constable
Motsokoane was that accused never mentioned being at that Pharmacy but he said
that he was applying for a job on that day. When the accused tes tified, his evidence
was mainly about being at Dischem Pharmacy. He never mentioned applying for a

was mainly about being at Dischem Pharmacy. He never mentioned applying for a
job on that day when he testified during his evidence in chief. The second problem
was that his evidence, when he was asked some clarity seeking questions by the
court, was that these documents on which he relied were necessary for the job
application. However, he said that he only submitted the documents on 5 May 2024.
He testified that he was interviewed on 8 May 2024, the very day he said he started
working as a porter at Groote Schuur Hospital. It is difficult to fathom a situation in
which a person is required to comply with medical requirements for a job at the

application stage even before he or she is interviewed. The illogicality of the potential
employers requiring all job applicants to satisfy this requirement even before the
shortlisting and interviews is glaring. There are many other problems with the
accused’s alibi including his failure to call this girlfriend who seems to have played
this crucial role in proving the alibi of the accused.

[29] I hasten to point out that an accused person is not required to prove his alibi. In
Hlongwana2 the court expressed itself as follows:

“The legal position with regard to an alibi is that there is no onus on an
accused to establish it and if it might reasonably be true he must be acquitted.
But it is important to point out in applying this test the alibi does not have to be
considered in isolation. The correct approach is to consider the alibi in the
light of the totality of the evidence in the case and the court’s impressions of
witnesses.”

[30] It is so that there were shortcomings in the police’s investigation of this case. For
example, it is not clear to me why the police did not speak to the nurse at Di schem
Pharmacy, who, on the document submitted by the defence to prove that the
accused was there, attended to the accused. Once that document was submitted the
police did not investigate its authenticity. They just rejected it on their own without
establishing that it was a false or a fake document. There were glaringly
disconcerting features about that document, one of which was the fact that the
names of the accused appear on it. At the same time, the document records that the
person who was seen was a f emale person. Another difficulty is the fact that
according to that document this female patient is described as being:

“S-A 42 Y/O FEMALE IN A STABLE CONDITION REQUESTING ADMIN OF
EUVAXB.
O-CLIENT APPEARS WELL WITH NO C/O RAISED
A-EUVAX B GIVEN IMI LEFT ARM BATCH HR: UFX23501 EXP 01/2026
P-MONITOR INJECTION SITE FOR ANY ABNORMALITIES

2 R v Hlongwana 1959(3) SA 337(A)

ADVISED ON VIT C SUPPLEMENT TO BOOST IMMUNE SYSTEM”

[31] The State did not call a properly qualified witness, be it a nurse or a doctor to
assist the court in understanding t he circumstances in which the medicine that was
injected on the accused could have been injected. There are glaring questions like
whether or not a person can simply walk into a pharmacy on their own without a
doctor’s prescription and request to be inject ed with this medicine. The medicine
purportedly injected on him was described as hepatitis B injection. The person was
described as having been in a stable condition. This suggests that this person,
whoever it was, might have been sick. On the other hand, the accused’s evidence
was that he went to that pharmacy for a job application which required that he
submits proof of having been given a hepatitis B injection. This appears to be odds
with a sick person in a stable condition as the basis for the injection.

[32] At some stage during his evidence, the accused appeared to be distancing
himself from this specific document indicating that the correct document was
submitted at his work place. On the other hand, the State cannot be expected to
close every loophole open to the accused. This is certainly not part of our law. In
Chabalala3 the court said that:

“The trial court’s approach to the case was however, holistic and in this, it was
undoubtedly right: S v Van Aswegen 2001 (2) SACR 97 (SCA). 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 weakness, probabilities and improbabilities
on both sides and, having done so, to decide whether, the balance weighs so
heavily in favour of the State so as to exclude any reasonable doubt about the
accused’s guilt. The result may prove that one scrap of evidence or one
defect in the case of either party (such as the failure to call a material witness

defect in the case of either party (such as the failure to call a material witness
concerning an identity parade) was decisive but that can only be an ex post
facto determination and a trial court (and counsel) should avoid the temptation

3 S v Chabalala 2003 (1) SACR 134 (SCA) at 139 para 15.

to latch on to one (apparently) obvious aspect without assessing it in t he
context of the full picture presented in evidence.”

[33] While the accused insisted on having been nowhere near the crime scene,
having never set his foot in Mt Ayliff and therefore not being involved in the brutal
murder of the deceased, there are seri ous problems with his alibi. The evidence that
he gave was entirely unsatisfactory with certain aspects of it having been not put to
the investigating officer while some of it simply did not make sense and appeared to
have been made up as he was testifying. For example, I have serious difficulties with
the accused’s version that on 3 May 2024 he was making a job application which
necessitated his visit to Dischem Pharmacy. Among other problems, the job
application was made on 3 May 2024. The 3 May 2024 was a Friday. He claimed to
have submitted this job application on 5 May 2024 which was a Sunday. This is
hugely improbable but it gets worse, as, on his evidence, he was interviewed on 8
May 2024, the very day in which he started working. If one assumes that there would
have been many job applicants, how he got to be interviewed on 8 May 2024 and
start working on that same date is bewildering. Even worse, his visit to Dischem
Pharmacy was about the job application when he would not have known that he
would be employed. None of this made any sense.

[34] However, as I said before, he had no onus to prove his alibi. However, on closer
scrutiny, his alibi did not make sense at all. Even worse, was the fingerprint expert
finding his print at the crime scene more than 1000km away from where he said he
was. The evidence of warrant officer Sefoloko was very detailed, clear and reliable.
He was able to explain in quite some detail how he got the fingerprints at the crime
scene, what he did with them and how they led to the accused who was now before
court. He was able to point out, explain and identify the seven points that are

court. He was able to point out, explain and identify the seven points that are
necessary to prove that one of the prints that were found at the crime scene was that
of the accused. The legal representative of the acc used pointed out, correctly, I
might add, that it was difficult to challenge the evidence of warrant officer Sefoloko,
the fingerprint expert.

[35] The callous murder of the deceased was clearly pre planned with some detail. It
appears to have been part o f the accused’s plans, together with whoever he worked

with, to have documents that placed him in Cape Town on the exact date on which
the deceased was murdered. This was, in my view, not a simple coincidence. His
alibi defence did not stand up to closer scrutiny and is rejected as having been a pre-
planned ruse to avoid criminal liability in the event that anything led to him. While the
court does not have to be convinced that every detail of the accused’s version is
true, an accused’s version must be rea sonably possibly true in substance. In this
case, the accused’s version was not only improbable, it was so improbable that it
could not be reasonably possibly true. The version presented by the State was
mutually destructive with the version of the accused that he was in Cape Town on 3
May 2024, the date of the deceased murder. The process of considering these two
versions cannot be explained any better than Moosa J in Van Rensburg4.

“Logic dictates that, where there are two conflicting versions or two mut ually
destructive stories, both cannot be true. Only one can be true. Consequently,
the other must be false. However, the dictates of logic do not displace the
standard of proof required either in a civil or criminal matter. In order to
determine the o bjective truth of the one version and the falsity of the other, it
is important to consider not only the credibility of the witnesses, but also the
reliability of such witnesses. Evidence that is reliable should be weighed
against the evidence that is fou nd to be false and, in the process measured
against the probabilities. In the final analysis the court must determine
whether the State has mustered the requisite threshold – in this case proof
beyond reasonable doubt. (see: S v Saban and ’n Ander 1992(1) SACR 199
(A) at 203j to 204 a -b; S v Van der Meyden 1999(1) SACR 447 (W) at 440 g -j
– 450a-b and S v Trainor 2003 (1) SACR 35 (SCA) at para [9].)”

[36] On the basis of a careful analysis of all the evidence in this matter, I have come

[36] On the basis of a careful analysis of all the evidence in this matter, I have come
to the conclusion th at the State has proved the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt for the premeditated murder of the deceased.

[37] In the result the accused is found guilty as follows:


4 S v Van Rensburg and Another 2009 (2) SACR 216 (C) para 8

1. Housebreaking with intent to commit an offence.
2. The murder of Mahlubandile Churchill Mdani.
3. Possession of an unlicensed firearm.


____________________
M.S. JOLWANA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT


Appearances

Counsel for the state : C Mkentane
Instructed by : NDPP
Mthatha

Counsel for the accused : S T Kekana
Instructed by : Legal Aid Board South Africa
Mthatha

Date heard : 25 July 2025
Date delivered : 1 August 2025