Richard Ditshele Molimi v The State

The applicant, Mr Molimi, was the manager of a Clicks store at Southgate Mall, Johannesburg. On 30 October 2007, during a routine cash collection by Fidelity Guards, the store was robbed by armed men. One robber was caught at the scene; two people died during the ensuing gunfire, and others were injured. Molimi was arrested a day later and charged with robbery with aggravating circumstances, murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, and firearm-related offences. He made no statement to police. Two co-accused made extra-curial statements to police implicating Molimi in the planning and execution of the robbery. These statements were admitted at trial as hearsay evidence against Molimi under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988. Molimi was convicted in the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal upheld some of his convictions, relying on the admissibility of the hearsay statements. Molimi sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, challenging the admissibility and timing of the admission of the extra-curial statements against him.

Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal was upheld. The convictions of the applicant that depended on the inadmissible hearsay evidence were set aside.

This case is a leading Constitutional Court authority on the admissibility of extra-curial statements by co-accused in criminal trials. It clarified and limited the application of S v Ndhlovu, reaffirming that hearsay evidence must be admitted cautiously and in a manner consistent with fair trial rights. The judgment underscores the importance of timely and clear rulings on admissibility to prevent procedural unfairness.