Ntuthuzelo Nokhokhoba and Sandile Ntshetshe v The State

The applicants were convicted on 26 February 2025 at the Bizana Circuit Court on charges of housebreaking with intent to commit rape and robbery with aggravating circumstances, robbery with aggravating circumstances, rape, and murder. They applied for leave to appeal their convictions. The State's case relied heavily on evidence from a section 204 witness who testified that he was with both accused when the offences were committed and that the accused were well known to him. A K-Way hat was allegedly found at the crime scene and linked to the 2nd applicant. The 1st applicant allegedly made admissions to his uncle about going to collect a debt from the deceased and being suspected of her murder.

• Whether the trial court misdirected itself in finding the State proved its case beyond reasonable doubt
• Whether the trial court exercised sufficient caution when dealing with evidence of a section 204 witness
• Whether the trial court erred in accepting the credibility of the section 204 witness given various alleged inconsistencies
• Whether independent forensic evidence (DNA and fingerprints) was necessary for conviction
• Whether the trial court misdirected itself regarding the alleged admissions by the 1st applicant to his uncle
• Whether the trial court erred in finding the K-Way hat belonged to the 2nd applicant without proper evidence
• Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the applicants' versions
• Whether the application for leave to appeal meets the threshold requirements under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

For leave to appeal to be granted under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, an applicant must establish reasonable prospects of success by providing a sound, rational basis for the conclusion that there are prospects of success on appeal. It is insufficient to merely argue that another court may come to a different finding. Reasonable prospects of success require more than a mere possibility of success, that the case is arguable, or that it cannot be categorized as hopeless - there must be a realistic chance of succeeding. The State has no duty to adduce all possible evidence in a criminal matter, particularly where direct evidence linking the accused to the commission of the crime exists.

The court made passing observations that it had dealt in detail with each specific ground raised by the applicants in its original conviction judgment of 26 February 2025, suggesting the grounds had already been thoroughly addressed and rejected. The court's comment that the applicants' argument on DNA evidence is 'even worse in this matter' where direct evidence exists suggests a broader principle about the relative weight and necessity of forensic evidence versus direct eyewitness evidence, though this was not fully elaborated upon as it was not necessary for the decision.

This case demonstrates the application of the statutory threshold for granting leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 in the context of criminal appeals. It confirms that the threshold has been raised beyond the traditional test and that applicants must provide a sound, rational basis for prospects of success rather than merely asserting another court might reach a different conclusion. The case also reiterates that the State is not required to adduce all possible evidence (such as DNA) where direct evidence linking accused persons to crimes is available. It reinforces the proper approach to evaluating section 204 witness evidence and the limits of challenging credibility findings on appeal.