In Re:R v Manyala and R v Ntseke (C of A (CRI) 5 of 2011) [2012] LSCA 6 (27 April 2012)

IN THE COUR T OF AP PE AL OF LE S OTH O C OF A (CRI) NO.5 OF 2 0 1 1 In t h e m a t ter b etween : KH OLU MANYALA AP PE LLANT AND a n d R E X R E X a n d R E S P ONDE NT AP PE LLANT NE O NTS E KE R E S P ONDE NT COR AM: RAMODIBE DI P S MALBE RGE R J A S COTT J A 1 3 APRIL 2 0 1 2 HE ARD : DE LIVE RE D: 2 7 APRIL 2 0 1 2 S UMMAR Y Ap p ea l a n d cr os s -a p p ea l a ga in s t con vict ion a n d s en t en ce of a ccu s ed 1 a n d a cqu it t a l of a ccu s ed 2 r es p ect ively on ch a r ges of fr a u d a n d t h eft – evid en ce r eviewed – fa ilu r e of a ccu s ed 1 t o give evid en ce t o r eb u t p r im a fa cie ca s e – con s equ en ce of – n eed for cor r ob or a t ion of a ccom p lice evid en ce a ga in s t a ccu s ed 2 – n o a ccep t a b le cor r ob or a t ion im p lica t in g a ccu s ed 2 – b ot h a p p ea l a n d cr os s -a p p ea l d is m is s ed . J UDGME NT S MALBE R GE R J A [1 ] Kh olu Ma n ya la (a ccu s ed 1 ) a n d Neo Nts ek e (a ccu s ed 2 ) a p p ea r ed in t h e High Cou r t b efor e Hla joa n e J on fou r cou n t s of fr a u d (cou n ts 1 , 2 , 5 a n d 6 ) a n d two cou n t s of t h eft (cou n ts 3 a n d 4 ). At t h e con clu s ion of t h e tr ia l t h e lea r n ed tr ia l ju d ge con vict ed a ccu s ed 1 on cou n ts 1 a n d 2 a n d a cqu it ted h er on t h e r em a in in g fou r cou n ts ; a ccu s ed 2 wa s a cqu it ted on a ll cou n t s . Accu s ed 1 wa s s en ten ced t o a n effective s en ten ce of five yea r s im p r is on m en t , t h e two cou n t s on wh ich s h e wa s con vict ed b ein g ta k en a s on e for t h e p u r p os e of s en ten ce. S h e a p p ea led a ga in s t h er con viction a n d s en ten ce. In t u r n t h e Cr own a p p ea led a ga in s t t h e a cqu it ta l of a ccu s ed 2 on a ll cou n ts . Th e two a p p ea ls a r e p r es en tly b efor e u s . I s h a ll d ea l wit h ea ch of t h em in t u r n . For con ven ien ce I s h a ll r efer t o t h e a p p ella n t in t h e fir s t a p p ea l a n d t h e r es p on d en t in t h e s econ d a p p ea l a s a ccu s ed 1 a n d a ccu s ed 2 r es p ectively. [2 ] It is com m on ca u s e t h a t t h e offen ces wit h wh ich t h e a ccu s ed wer e ch a r ged wer e com m it ted in t h e execu tion of a clever ly con tr ived p la n wit h t h e ob ject of d efr a u d in g, in ter a lia , t h e Les ot h o Gover n m en t . In is s u e a t t h eir tr ia l wa s t h e a lleged com p licity of t h e two a ccu s ed in s u ch p la n . In es s en ce t h e ch a r ges a ga in s t t h e a ccu s ed r ela ted t o two ch equ es t h a t wer e cr ea t ed wit h in t h e Dep a r t m en t of Tr ea s u r y (t h e Tr ea s u r y). Bot h ch equ es wer e cr ea t ed in t h e n a m e of Metr op olita n S er vices , t h e fir s t on 6 Novem b er 2 0 0 2 in a n a m ou n t of M4 8 6 ,7 1 9 .5 0 a n d t h e s econ d on 2 4 J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 in a n a m ou n t of M4 8 9 ,6 2 5 .2 1 . [3 ] Th e evid en ce es ta b lis h ed t h a t in or d er for a ch equ e t o b e ca p tu r ed a n d cr ea ted wit h in t h e op er a t ive s ys tem s of t h e Tr ea s u r y a con fir m ed a n d a u t h or ized p a ym en t vou ch er wit h u n d er lyin g a n d s u p p or tin g d ocu m en t a tion wa s r equ ir ed . After th e cr ea tion of a ch equ e t h er e wou ld b e a “s ign in g off” p r oces s u n d er ta k en b y a d iffer en t s ection of t h e Tr ea s u r y d es ign ed t o con fir m t h a t t h e ch equ e cor r es p on d ed wit h t h e ca p t u r ed in for m a tion . In t h e even t of a cr ea ted ch equ e b ein g fou n d wit h ou t t h e n eces s a r y p a ym en t vou ch er s a n d s u p p or tin g d ocu m en t a tion t h e ch equ e wou ld b e s en t t o t h e b a n k r econ cilia tion s ection of t h e Tr ea s u r y wh er e it wou ld b e p la ced in a d ep os it b ox a n d la ter ca n celled a n d r ever s ed . Th is wa s a n in tegr a l p a r t of t h e s ys tem t h a t op er a ted wit h in t h e Tr ea s u r y a n d wa s well- k n own to a ll wh o wor k ed t h er e. However , n ot ever yon e in t h e Tr ea s u r y h a d a cces s to t h e ch equ es t h a t wer e s en t to b e ca n celled . [4 ] It is com m on ca u s e t h a t t h e t wo ch equ es in qu es tion wer e b ot h cr ea ted b y a ccu s ed 1 on t h e com p u t er on wh ich s h e op er a ted , p u r p or t ed ly in com p lia n ce wit h p a ym en t vou ch er s 1 4 5 5 a n d 1 7 8 5 r es p ectively. Th e Cr own ca s e a ga in s t t h e a ccu s ed wa s t h a t t h ey wer e p a r ties t o a join t s ch em e ca r r ied ou t on two s ep a r a te occa s ion s in a n id en tica l m a n n er ; t h a t a ccu s ed 1 cr ea ted ch equ es b y ca p t u r in g n on -exis tin g vou ch er s a n d in for m a tion on to t h e com p u t er s ys t em ; t h a t t h e ch equ es wer e t h en s en t t o t h e b a n k r econ cilia tion s ection wh en t h ey wer e fou n d n ot to h a ve s u p p or tin g d ocu m en t a tion in or d er t o b e ca n celled a n d d es tr oyed ; th a t a ccu s ed 2 in d u ced a n a ccom p lice, Ret h a b ile Th a m a e (PW8 ), wh o h a d a cces s t o t h e r et u r n ed ch equ es , t o u p lift t h em b efor e t h ey wer e ca n celled ; t h a t t h e ch equ es wer e h a n d ed b y PW8 to a ccu s ed 2 ; t h a t a ccu s ed 2 in t u r n h a n d ed t h e ch equ es to a n ot h er a ccom p lice, on e Ch r is tia n Nes ciles cu (PW1 1 ), wh o a t a ccu s ed 2 ’s b eh es t h a d op en ed a n a ccou n t in Bloem fon t ein wit h ABSA b a n k in to wh ich t h e ch equ es wer e t o b e d ep os it ed a n d “la u n d er ed ” t h r ou gh t h e b a n k in g s ys t em ; t h a t PW1 1 s u b s equ en tly p a id over t h e b u lk of t h e p r oce ed s of t h e ch equ es t o a ccu s ed 2 ; a n d t h a t PW8 la ter r ecover ed t h e ca s h ed ch equ es a n d h a n d ed t h em t o a ccu s ed 2 t o b e d es tr oyed . Th a t t h er e h a d b een a s ch em e op er a t ed on t h e a b ove lin es , a n d t h a t PW8 a n d PW1 1 h a d p a r ticip a t ed in it , wa s n ever in d is p u te. In is s u e wa s t h e in volvem en t of a ccu s ed 1 a n d 2 in s u ch s c h em e. Th e a p p e a l b y a c c u s e d 1 . [5 ] Th a t a ccu s ed 1 wa s r es p on s ib le for cr ea tin g t h e ch equ es in qu es tion is b eyon d d ou b t. S h e p u r p or ted t o h a ve d on e s o on t h e s tr en gt h of va lid vou ch er s a n d s u p p or tin g d ocu m en t a tion . Th e u n d is p u t ed evid en ce r evea ls t h a t t h e a u t h or ized p a ym en t vou ch er No. 1 4 5 5 on ly ca m e in t o op er a tion on or a b ou t 2 0 Decem b er 2 0 0 2 i.e. m or e t h a n a m on t h a fter t h a t vou ch er n u m b er wa s u s ed b y a ccu s ed 1 for t h e cr ea t ion of t h e fir s t ch equ e. Fu r t h er m or e, vou ch er No. 1 7 8 5 h a d n ot yet b een a u t h or ized a n d is s u ed wh en a ccu s ed 1 u s ed it for t h e p u r p os e of cr ea tin g t h e s econ d ch equ e. Th er e is n o evid en ce to s u gges t t h a t d u p lica t e vou ch er n u m b er s m igh t h a ve exis ted wit h in t h e Tr ea s u r y s ys tem . [6 ] It is fu r t h er com m on ca u s e t h a t in s p ite of d iligen t s ea r ch b y a n u m b er of officia ls in t h e Tr ea s u r y t h e vou ch er s a n d s u p p or tin g d ocu m en ta tion p u r p or ted ly u n d er lyin g t h e ch equ es cr ea t ed b y a ccu s ed 1 cou ld n ot b e fou n d , s u gges tin g t h a t t h ey n ever exis t ed . Sign ifica n tly n o s u ch vou ch er s a n d d ocu m en t a tion wer e p r es en t d u r in g t h e s ign in g off p r oces s s h or tly a ft er t h e ch equ es wer e cr ea t ed , h en ce t h e ch equ es b ein g s en t t o t h e b a n k r econ cilia tion s ection for ca n cella tion . If t h ey h a d b een in e xis ten ce wh en a ccu s ed 1 ca p t u r ed t h e ch equ es s om eon e m u s t h a ve r em oved t h em , on two s ep a r a te occa s ion s , b efor e t h e ch equ es wen t t h r ou gh t h e s ign in g off p r oces s , s om et h in g of wh ich t h er e wa s n o s u gges tion . [7 ] Th e a b ove evid en ce, wh ich d ir ectly im p lica t ed a ccu s ed 1 in t h e cr ea tion of two fr a u d u len t ch equ es u s ed in t h e s ch em e t o d efr a u d t h e Tr ea s u r y con s tit u t ed prim a fa cie evid en ce of h er in volvem en t in t h e s ch em e. Yet a ccu s ed 1 r efr a in ed fr om givin g evid en ce a n d p r ovid in g a n exp la n a tion wit h r ega r d t o h ow s h e h a d cr ea ted t h e ch equ es , wh a t d ocu m en ta tion t h er e wa s in s u p p or t of t h e ch equ es a n d h ow s h e h a d com e to r eflect vou ch er n u m b er s n ot in u s e a t t h e tim e. [8 ] Wh ile a ccu s ed 1 h a d t h e u n d ou b t ed r igh t to r em a in s ilen t , h er d ecis ion to d o s o is n ot wit h ou t con s equ en ce. It is clea r ly es t a b lis h ed t h a t wh er e t h er e is evid en ce ca llin g for a n a n s wer a n d a n a ccu s ed p er s on ch oos es t o r em a in s ilen t in t h e fa ce of s u ch evid en ce, a cou r t m a y b e en titled to con clu d e t h a t t h e evid en ce p r es en ted is s u fficien t to p r ove t h e gu ilt of t h e a ccu s ed in t h e a b s en ce of a n exp la n a tion (S . v Bo e s a k 2 0 0 1 (1 ) SACR (CC) a t p a r [2 4 ]). Her fa ilu r e t o give evid en ce r es u lted in t h er e b ein g n ot h in g to ga in s a y t h e evid en ce of t h e Cr own . Th e evid en ce of h er d efen ce wit n es s d id n ot a s s is t in t h a t r ega r d , a s it d id n ot d etr a ct in a n y wa y fr om t h e Cr own ’s evid en ce, a n d t h e in evit a b le in fer en ce of gu ilt t h a t m u s t follow fr om it in t h e a b s en ce of a n y r eb u tt a l. In t h e r es u lt a ccu s ed 1 wa s cor r ectly con victed on cou n t s 1 a n d 2 a n d h er a p p ea l a ga in s t h er con viction s ca n n ot s u cceed . [9 ] Wit h r ega r d t o s en ten ce, a cu s t od ia l s en ten ce wa s clea r ly ca lled for h a vin g r ega r d to, in ter a lia , t h e a m ou n t in volved , a ccu s ed 1 ’s a b u s e of a p os ition of tr u s t , h er a p p a r en t la ck of r em or s e a n d wh a t wou ld s eem t o b e t h e p r eva len ce of t h is typ e of offen ce. (Cf: R v Le b in a a n d An o t h e r LAC (2 0 0 0 -2 0 0 4 ) 4 6 4 a t 4 7 8 C – 4 7 9 G.) Th e lea r n ed ju d ge a qu o h a s n ot b een s h own t o h a ve m is d ir ect ed h er s elf wit h r ega r d t o s en t en ce a n d n o gr ou n d exis ts for in t er fer en ce wit h t h e s en ten ce im p os ed . As a n effective s en ten ce of five yea r s im p r is on m en t wa s clea r ly in ten d ed b y t h e tr ia l ju d ge, for t h e s a k e of cla r ity t h e wor d s “on ea ch cou n t ” s h ou ld b e d eleted fr om t h e fir s t lin e of t h e s en t en ce im p os ed . Th e c r o s s a p p e a l b y t h e Cr o wn . [1 0 ] Th e Cr own ’s ca s e a ga in s t a ccu s ed 2 is b a s ed on t h e evid en ce of t h e two a ccom p lices PW8 a n d PW1 1 . Th ey tes tified wit h r ega r d to wh a t wer e es s en tia lly two in d ep en d en t fa ct u a l s it u a tion s . In r ela tion t o t h os e even ts t h ey d id n ot cor r ob or a te ea ch ot h er . Th eir evid en ce on ly over la p p ed a t on e p oin t , t o wh ich I s h a ll r ever t la ter . [1 1 ] PW8 wor k ed a t t h e Tr ea s u r y a t t h e r eleva n t tim e a s a cler ica l a s s is t a n t in t h e b a n k r econ cilia tion s ection . In h is ca p a city a s s u ch h e h a d a cces s to ch equ es s en t t h er e for ca n cella tion b eca u s e t h ey la ck ed s u p p or tin g d ocu m en ta tion . He cla im ed to h a ve b een a fr ien d of a ccu s ed 2 for a n u m b er of yea r s a n d t h a t t h ey h a d a good r ela tion s h ip . He h a d b een for ewa r n ed b y a ccu s ed 2 t h a t a ch equ e m a d e ou t t o Metr op olita n S er vices in a n a m ou n t of a b ou t M4 8 6 7 0 0 wou ld b e r et u r n ed to t h e b a n k r econ cilia tion s ection . PW8 h a d a cces s t o t h e b ox in wh ich r etu r n ed ch equ es wer e d ep os ited . He wa s a s k ed b y a ccu s ed 2 to u p lift t h e ch equ e a n d h a n d it over to h im . PW8 d id a s h e wa s a s k ed , d u ly in ter cep tin g t h e ch equ e a n d h a n d in g it over to a ccu s ed 2 . Th is occu r r ed in a b ou t Novem b er 2 0 0 2 . Accu s ed 2 told h im t h a t t h e ch equ e wa s goin g t o b e “p r oces s ed s om ewh er e” wit h ou t t ellin g h im t h e n a m e of t h e p er s on wh o wou ld b e in volved . S om e m on t h s la ter h e wa s a s k ed to r ep ea t t h e s a m e p r oces s in r ela tion t o a n ot h er ch equ e m a d e ou t t o Metr op olita n S er vices . After h a n d in g over t h e ch equ e on t h a t occa s ion h e a n d a ccu s ed 2 p r oceed ed t o Na n d os wh er e h e m et PW1 1 for t h e fir s t (a n d on ly) tim e. Th e t h r ee of t h em h a d a m ea l toget h er a n d a s t h ey left a ccu s ed 2 h a n d ed over a n en velop e con t a in in g t h e ch equ e t o PW1 1 . Accor d in g t o PW8 h e wa s given M3 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 b y a ccu s ed 2 s om e fou r week s la t er . Th e ch equ es t h a t h a d b een ca s h ed la ter fou n d t h eir wa y b a ck to t h e b a n k r econ cilia tion s ection . Aft er t h ey wer e filed t h ey wer e u p lifted b y PW8 a n d h a n d ed over to a ccu s ed 2 , a t t h e la t ter ’s r equ es t, in or d er t o b e d es tr oyed . [1 2 ] PW8 m a d e two s ta tem en ts t o t h e p olice, t h e fir s t on 1 7 Ma r ch 2 0 0 4 a n d t h e s econ d on 1 4 Ma r ch 2 0 0 5 . In t h e fir s t s ta tem en t h e cla im ed t h a t a ccu s ed 2 h a d a p p r oa ch ed h im a t t h e b egin n in g of 2 0 0 3 a n d a s k ed h im “t o give h im two ch equ es wh ich I d id .” He m a d e n o m en tion of t h e cr itica lly im p or ta n t m eetin g a t Na n d os , a n d a ls o cla im ed t h a t “I n ever s a w t h e ch equ es s in ce t h en .” In h is s econ d s ta tem en t h e m en tion ed t h e m eetin g a t Na n d os wit h PW1 1 . Accor d in g t o h im “t h e m eetin g wa s h eld a fter t h e ch equ es [h a d ] b een s en t t o Bloem fon t ein .” He m a d e n o m en tion of a n yt h in g h a vin g b een h a n d ed to, or h a n d ed over b y, PW1 1 . In h is s econ d s ta tem en t h e m en tion s h a vin g u p lifted t h e ch equ es a ft er t h ey h a d b een ca s h ed a n d h a n d in g t h em t o a ccu s ed 2 . Fr om t h e a b ove it is a p p a r en t t h a t t h er e wer e a n u m b er of s ign ifica n t d iffer en ces b etween h is evid en ce a t t h e tr ia l a n d h is ea r lier s ta tem en ts . [1 3 ] Accor d in g t o PW1 1 , h e fir s t m et a ccu s ed 2 in Bloem fon tein in Au gu s t 2 0 0 2 a t h is p la ce of b u s in es s , a Bis tr o a n d Ta ver n , s it u a ted n ext t o a ta xi r a n k . Th e a ccu s ed a s k ed h im to op en a n a ccou n t in t h e n a m e of Metr op olita n S er vices in t o wh ich wer e t o b e d ep os ited Les ot h o gover n m en t ch equ es . E ffectively PW1 1 wa s b ein g r equ es t ed t o “la u n d er ” t h e ch equ es , to wh ich h e a p p ea r s t o h a ve r ea d ily a gr eed . Th a t two a lleged ly com p lete s tr a n ger s , n eit h er of wh om h a d a n y r ea s on t o tr u s t t h e ot h er , wou ld wit h ou t fu r t h er a d o en t er in t o a n efa r iou s a r r a n gem en t of t h is k in d , in vit es s u s p icion . Th e evid en ce of t h eir d ea lin gs wit h ea ch ot h er , in t h e wor d s of t h e tr ia l ju d ge, “left m u ch to b e d es ir ed .” [1 4 ] PW1 1 d u ly op en ed a ch equ e a ccou n t . He r eceived t h e fir s t ch equ e fr om a ccu s ed 2 on 1 2 Novem b er 2 0 0 2 wh en h e ca m e t o collect it . He a ga in ca m e t o Les ot h o on 2 6 Feb r u a r y 2 0 0 3 t o collect t h e s econ d ch equ e. On b ot h occa s ion s h e m et a ccu s ed 2 a t t h e La n cer ’s In n wh er e t h e ch equ es wer e h a n d ed over t o h im . He d u ly d ep os ited t h e ch equ es in t h e a ccou n t h e h a d op en ed , m a d e cer ta in wit h d r a wa ls fr om t h e a ccou n t, a n d p a id over t h e b u lk of t h e m on ey t o a ccu s ed 2 , r eta in in g s om e for h im s elf. Mon ey in r es p ect of t h e fir s t ch equ e wa s p a id over t o a ccu s ed 2 in Bloem fon tein , a p p a r en tly s om e tim e in J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . In r es p ect of t h e s econ d ch equ e t h e m on ey wa s p a id over to a ccu s ed 2 on 1 4 Ma r ch 2 0 0 3 in Ma s er u . Th is h a p p en ed a t Na n d os a n d PW8 wa s p r es en t on t h a t occa s ion . [1 5 ] Accu s ed 2 r es p on d ed t o t h e evid en ce of PW8 a n d PW1 1 b y d en yin g t h eir evid en ce in s ofa r a s it im p lica ted h im . He a ls o d en ied a p a s t fr ien d s h ip wit h PW8 a n d a s cr ib ed a s a p os s ib le m otive for PW8 fa ls ely im p lica tin g h im t h e fa ct t h a t PW8 wa s jea lou s b eca u s e h e, a ccu s ed 2 , h a d b een p r om ot ed a h ea d of PW8 . [1 6 ] As I h a ve p r eviou s ly m en tion ed , t h e evid en ce of PW8 a n d PW1 1 d oes n ot over la p s a ve wit h r ega r d t o t h e even t s a t Na n d os . It wa s a r gu ed b y t h e Cr own t h a t t h ey cor r ob or a ted ea ch ot h er in t h a t r ega r d . Bu t , a s h a s b een p oin ted ou t, t h er e wa s a m a ter ia l con tr a d iction in t h eir r es p ective ver s ion s r ega r d in g wh a t wa s h a n d ed over a n d b y a n d to wh om , wh ich wa s n ever r es olved . Mor eover , t h e evid en ce of PW8 is op en t o cr iticis m a r is in g fr om t h e d is cr ep a n cies b etween h is evid en ce a t t h e tr ia l a n d h is ea r lier s t a t em en ts . He wa s a n u n s a tis fa ct or y witn es s a n d it wou ld in m y view b e d a n ger ou s t o r ega r d h is evid en ce a s a ccep ta b le cor r ob or a tion of t h e evid en ce of P1 1 . [1 7 ] Wh ile t h e evid en ce of PW1 1 is les s op en t o cr iticis m , h e r em a in s a n a ccom p lice wh os e evid en ce m u s t b e a p p r oa ch ed wit h t h e n eces s a r y ca u tion b ea r in g in m in d t h a t h e is a s elf con fes s ed cr im in a l, h e m a y b e s h ield in g t h e tr u e cu lp r it a n d t h a t b y r ea s on of h is in s id e k n owled ge h e h a s “a d ecep tive fa cility for con vin cin g d es cr ip tion ” (p er Holm es J A in S v HLAPE ZULA AND OTHE R S 1 9 6 5 (4 ) S A 4 3 9 (A) a t 4 4 0 D – F.) [1 8 ] It a p p ea r s fr om h er ju d gm en t t h a t t h e tr ia l ju d ge wa s con cer n ed a b ou t t h e r is k of fa ls e in cr im in a t ion of a ccu s ed 2 b y PW8 a n d PW1 1 , n eit h er of wh om s eem s t o h a ve m a d e a fa vou r a b le im p r es s ion on h er , a n d s ou gh t cor r ob or a tion of t h eir evid en ce. Wh er e cor r ob or a tion is r equ ir ed (cor r ob or a tion n ot a lwa ys b ein g es s en tia l t o s a tis fy t h e ca u tion a r y r u le) it m u s t b e cor r ob or a tion im p lica tin g a n a ccu s ed . In t h e p r es en t ca s e t h er e wa s n o cor r ob or a tion im p lica tin g a ccu s ed 2 a p a r t fr om wh a t h a p p en ed a t Na n d os , wh ich I h a ve a lr ea d y d is cou n ted . Th er e wa s n o evid en ce of a n y r ela tion s h ip or con n ection b e t ween a ccu s ed 1 a n d a ccu s ed 2 , n o ot h er evid en ce t o con n ect h im wit h t h e s t olen ch equ es , a n d n o evid en ce of r ecen tly a cqu ir ed wea lt h . He wa s n ot even a s k ed to p r od u ce h is p a s s p or t wh ich m igh t h a ve s h own t h a t h e cou ld h a ve b een in Bloem fon tein in Au gu s t 2 0 0 2 a n d J a n u a r y 2 0 0 3 . In m y view t h e Cr own h a s n ot s h own t h a t t h e tr ia l ju d ge m is d ir ect ed h er s elf in a n y r es p ect in con clu d in g t h a t s h e cou ld n ot p la ce s u fficien t r elia n ce on t h e evid en ce of PW8 a n d PW1 1 t o con vict a ccu s ed 2 . In t h e cir cu m s t a n ces t h er e a r e n o legitim a t e gr ou n d s for in ter fer in g wit h h er a cqu it ta l of a ccu s ed 2 . Or d e r [1 9 ] Th e followin g or d er is m a d e: 1 ) Th e a p p ea l of a ccu s ed 1 (KHOLU MANYALA) a ga in s t h er con viction a n d is d is m is s ed . s en ten ce 2 ) Th e a p p ea l of t h e Cr own a ga in s t t h e a cqu it t a l of a ccu s ed 2 (NE O NTSE KE ) is d is m is s ed . ___________________________ J . W. S MALBE R GE R J US TICE OF APPE AL I a gr ee: __________________________ M. M. R AMODIBE DI PRE SIDE NT OF THE COURT OF APPE AL I a gr ee: ________________________ D. G. S COTT J US TICE OF APPE AL For a ccu s ed 1 For a ccu s ed 2 For t h e Cr own : : : Mr . H. Na t h a n e Ad v P. V. Tś en oli Ad v G. H. Pen zh or n S C