- The Supreme Court of Appeal overturned Hlalanathi Ngwadla’s murder conviction and ordered his release.
- The majority found there was no evidence proving that Ngwadla inflicted the fatal stab wound.
- The court ruled that the State could not rely on common purpose when it had not been pleaded or properly established at trial.
A man who spent years fighting a murder conviction has won his appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal, which found that the evidence presented against him did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed the deceased.
The court overturned the conviction and sentence imposed on Hlalanathi Ngwadla and ordered that he be released promptly after concluding that the State failed to establish that he either inflicted the fatal stab wound or could lawfully be convicted on the basis of common purpose.
Ngwadla and his brother, Namhla Ngwadla, were tried in the Regional Court in Stilfontein on a charge of murder. The charge related to the death of Klaas Matsipe during the early hours of 23 November 2014.
At the time of his death, Matsipe was the only eyewitness in a separate murder case in which Ngwadla, his brother and two others had been charged. Following Matsipe’s death, the prosecution in that matter collapsed, and the accused were acquitted under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the State could not present sufficient evidence.
The Regional Court convicted both brothers of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court in the North West upheld the conviction but reduced Ngwadla’s sentence to 18 years' imprisonment. His brother died before the appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was heard. Ngwadla then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, challenging his conviction.
What the eyewitness said
The State's case rested largely on the evidence of Isaac Papie Riet, a friend of the deceased. Riet testified that he was walking home from a tavern when he saw a man threatening him with a knife. After the man left, Riet followed him along a nearby street.
As he approached Ngwadla’s home, he heard music playing and initially thought people were dancing in the yard. When he looked more closely, he saw three men surrounding another person.
He described the men as raising their hands and legs high in the air in what appeared to be dancing movements. The person they surrounded then fell to the ground.
According to Riet, the three men lifted the person and carried him out of the yard. Two carried his legs while a third carried his head. At that point, he recognised the injured man as Matsipe.
Riet identified Ngwadla and his brother as two of the three men. He testified that Ngwadla had a knife in his hand, while the unidentified third man carried a pick handle.
When he shouted at them to leave Matsipe alone, the men turned their attention to him. Riet threw stones to keep them away and was later joined by other community members. The attackers eventually retreated into the house, leaving Matsipe in the street.
Riet found that Matsipe had a serious head wound and that the blade of a knife was protruding from the side of his head. The knife handle had broken away from the blade. Importantly, however, Riet repeatedly admitted that he did not actually see anyone stab Matsipe.
He testified that he saw Ngwadla’s brother making movements that looked like stabbing gestures, but he could not say that he saw a knife at that stage. He only observed a knife in Ngwadla’s possession after Matsipe had already fallen to the ground.
Riet also testified that during the incident, Ngwadla’s brother shouted at him, asking whether he also wanted to "feel", while Ngwadla shouted words to the effect that they should leave him because the person had not yet died.
The defence version
Ngwadla denied involvement in the killing. He testified that he and his friends were inside the house when a group of between 17 and 20 people began throwing stones at the property.
According to him, he went outside with a friend known as Lulu to investigate. He claimed that Lulu suddenly stabbed Matsipe with a knife. Ngwadla said he and others later carried Matsipe from the yard and placed him outside so that emergency services would be able to find him.
He denied carrying a knife and denied participating in any assault. His brother's evidence was inconsistent. At various points, he claimed to have seen little or nothing because it was dark, said he heard that a sibling had been stabbed, claimed a mob was throwing stones, and later said he only learned at the police station that Matsipe had been stabbed.
The Regional Court rejected both versions, finding that Ngwadla and his brother were poor witnesses and that Ngwadla had fabricated his account.
The pathologist's evidence
The doctor who conducted the post-mortem found severe head injuries. She described a penetrating wound to the head, a skull fracture and a penetrating injury to the brain. The evidence also revealed that when Matsipe was found, a broken knife blade remained lodged in his skull.
During questioning, the doctor indicated that the injuries appeared to be consistent with a single wound. However, when informed that a knife blade had been left behind in the skull, she accepted that the possibility of a second injury or second blow could not be excluded.
That evidence later became significant in the differing views adopted by the judges in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Why the majority overturn the conviction
The majority judgment, written by Judge P Coppin, found that there was no direct evidence proving that Ngwadla stabbed Matsipe. The court noted that Riet never witnessed the fatal blow and only saw Ngwadla holding a knife after Matsipe had already fallen.
The majority also found that the full bench of the High Court effectively relied on the doctrine of common purpose when it upheld the conviction. Common purpose allows a person to be convicted for a crime committed by another participant if certain legal requirements are met.
However, the Supreme Court of Appeal pointed out that the State never relied on common purpose in the charge sheet, never amended the charge sheet to include it and never conducted the trial on that basis.
The court held that an accused person must know the case he or she has to meet and that reliance on common purpose in those circumstances would be unfair.
The majority further found that there was insufficient evidence showing that Ngwadla actively associated himself with the fatal stabbing.
His presence at the scene, possession of a knife after the injury had apparently been inflicted, assistance in carrying the deceased, and the words attributed to him were not enough to establish criminal liability for murder.
The court also rejected attempts to infer guilt from speculation about the possibility of multiple stab wounds. According to the majority, there was simply no evidence proving that Ngwadla inflicted any stab wound on Matsipe.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
