At the close of the state’s case, accused 2 applied for discharge in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (the CPA) on counts 1 (murder) and 2 (robbery with aggravating circumstances). The state opposed the application. LIEBENBERG J considered the application as follows:
The law applicable to section 174 applications is well established (S v Nakale 2006 (2) NR 455 (HC) at 457; S v Teek 2009 (1) NR 127 (SC)). At the close of the state’s case, it was common cause that there was no direct evidence . . .