Loading PDF...
This document is 773.9 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 8
Judgment
6|
Reported
Common‑purpose doctrine upheld; pre‑trial silence cannot alone found an adverse inference, but late alibi disclosure may affect credibility.
Criminal law — common purpose — requirement of active association and subjective foresight; causation not required for liability in consequence crimes; section 39(2) development — doctrine constitutional. Constitutional law — right to remain silent (s35(1)(a), s35(3)(h)) — no adverse inference of guilt may be drawn from pre‑trial silence once warned; late disclosure of alibi may affect credibility and weight; cross‑examination on reasons for silence permissible if fair.
|
|
Whether accomplice’s single-witness evidence and discredited alibi sustain convictions beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal law – accomplice evidence – cautionary rule and need for corroboration; alibi and denial of complicity – test of reasonably possibly true; s 174 discharge; common purpose; use of circumstantial evidence (cellphone trail and forensic firearm link).
|
|
Prior acquaintance and independent police corroboration rendered eyewitness identification reliable, so conviction and sentence upheld.
Criminal law – identification evidence – prior acquaintance of witness increases reliability; independent police corroboration strengthens identification; investigative irregularities not necessarily fatal to conviction.
|
|
Applicant failed to prove entitlement to interim interdict restraining respondents from alleging fronting or representing themselves as shareholders.
* Interim interdict – requirements: prima facie right, well‑grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, balance of convenience, no satisfactory alternative remedy. * Shareholder/director status – disputed removals and procedural compliance affect interim relief. * Defamation/communications – entitlement to complain to regulatory bodies; no automatic interdiction of such complaints absent clear threat of irreparable harm. * Evidentiary sufficiency – hearsay and lack of confirmatory affidavits undermine urgent relief.
|
|
Occupiers cannot resist eviction on an unproven enrichment lien or unsubstantiated pending claims absent evidence of possession or homelessness.
* Property/Eviction – eviction against occupiers after sale by liquidators – balancing equity between purchaser’s right to possession and occupiers’ pending claims.
* Enrichment lien/right of retention – requires actual possession and cannot be asserted vicariously by a third party not in proceedings.
* Non-party claims – a respondent cannot rely on an unjoined third party’s unproven claim to resist eviction.
* Homelessness defence – must be supported by clear, candid primary facts; bald allegations are insufficient.
|
Act
2|
Human Rights
·
Peace and Security
|