Siyakubonga Funeral Parlour owner Ronel Mostert walked out of the Grahamstown Magistrate's Court a free woman on Wednesday 1 October, after she was discharged due to a lack of evidence.
Siyakubonga Funeral Parlour owner Ronel Mostert walked out of the Grahamstown Magistrate's Court a free woman on Wednesday 1 October, after she was discharged due to a lack of evidence.
Mostert was discharged in terms of section 174 Act 51/1977 of the Criminal Procedures Act which states: "If, at the close of the case for the prosecution at any trial, the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence referred to
in the charge or any offence of which he may be convicted on the charge, it may return a verdict of not guilty."
The eagerly awaited trial got off to a dramatic start on Tuesday as the first witness Mziwanele Klaas described to the court how he and Siphamandla Dyasi had cut through the flesh and bones of deceased Thamsanqa Tshali's legs.
He repeated his assertion that this had been under the instruction of their boss, Mostert.
In handing down judgment on Wednesday, magistrate Piet van Vuuren said he was dealing with the evidence of Klaas only. Both Klaas and Dyasi testified in the trial.
Explaining his reasons for disregarding Dyasi's evidence, Van Vuuren said Mostert's instructions to Dyasi on the day in question had been conveyed via Klaas, in the form of a translation. This was because Mostert had spoken in Afrikaans.
Van Vuuren said Klaas was thus in a position to do this in a way that suited his version of events.
Throughout the trial, Mostert was not required to sit in the dock, unless she was being addressed by the court. Instead, she sat next to her legal team.
Explaining why Mostert was not seated in the dock, state prosecutor Lyle Prins said Mostert's legal team had made an application for her to sit with them so she could consult easily.
Most of the case was conducted in Afrikaans.
Mostert, 49, was facing charges of mutilation of a corpse.
Dyasi and Klaas alleged that Mostert forced them to use an angle grinder to cut short a dead man's legs so his tall body could fit into a coffin.
They said not to do so would have put their jobs at risk.
The alleged incident was said to have taken place in 2011, when the two men worked at Siyakubonga Funeral Parlour.
Van Vuuren said the undisputed facts of the case were that on 14 January 2011 two men were busy grinding away at the legs of a dead man's body, which was given to a funeral parlour that is supposed to look after corpses in a dignified manner.
He said Klaas had not answered to 99% of the questions put to him.
He said it was clear that the possibility of losing his job was clearly a motivating factor in his reporting the case.
In the judgment, Mostert was not referred to in connection with the alleged incident.
Mostert's defence had earlier in the trial told Klaas she would testify that when Klaas realised the body did not fit into the coffin he told her he would "make a plan".
In his application to have Mostert discharged in terms of section 174 Act 51/1977, Bloem labelled Klaas as an unreliable witness saying Mostert had no knowledge of her employees' plans to cut off the legs of the deceased.
In his testimony, Dyasi said after they had finished doing what they were ordered to do "after hours", Klaas sent Mostert a message and she called him back.
Klaas then told her that they had done what she asked them to, he said.
He said she had then asked them to keep it a secret between three of them.
Van Vuuren said in this case the court wasn't dealing only with the mere fact of damaging a person's reputation, but also damaging it in society.
Her two former employees could face prosecution on the same charges of mutilation of a corpse.
