A GRAHAMSTOWN funeral parlour owner who was charged with violating a corpse after two employees sawed off its legs walked free this week.
Ronel Mostert successfully applied to the court for her discharge.
Earlier two witnesses and former employees of Mostert's Siyakubonga Funeral Parlour, Mziwanele Klaas and Siphamandla Dyasi, testified to how they cut off the lower legs of Thamsanqa Tshali's corpse with an angle grinder the day before the funeral so that it would fit into a conventional coffin.
Klaas told the court he had done so on the instruction of Mostert.
He said she had given him an angle grinder and a key to the parlour where they had committed the gruesome deed.
They then put the corpse in the coffin and prepared it for burial.
The next morning Klaas said he returned the angle grinder and key to Mostert.
Mostert's lawyer Gerald Bloem said that if called to testify, Mostert would deny she had ever given any such instruction.
Instead, she would say that when Klaas had come to her with the problem of the corpse the day before the funeral she had been deeply upset.
Bloem put it to Klaas that he had comforted her and said to her: "Mama, don't worry I will make a plan."
He said Mostert would say she had no knowledge of the mutilation of the corpse.
Klaas denied that version of events.
Dyasi had been with Klaas at the time the instruction was allegedly given by Mostert but according to Klaas he did not speak Afrikaans and so he had translated her instruction to him.
At the conclusion of the state's case, Bloem successfully applied for the discharge of his client in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
In terms of section 174 if, at the close of the prosecution's case, the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, it may discharge and acquit the accused.
State prosecutor Lyle Prince argued there was sufficient evidence on which a court could convict and that Mostert did have a case to answer.
But, Chief Magistrate Piet van Vuuren disagreed.
He said Klaas's evidence about the instruction had effectively been that of a single witness. Klaas had been unreliable and unforthcoming and had not measured up to the cautionary rule applying to a single witness.
Mostert was acquitted and discharged.
Van Vuuren also declined to indemnify either Klaas or Dyasi from prosecution. He warned both men at the beginning of their testimony that they ran the risk of facing similar 'violating a corpse' charges if they he did not answer questions "frankly and honestly".
It was not clear yesterday whether or not the Eastern Cape director of public prosecutions would file charges against the two men.
newsdesk@sowetan.co.za
For more stories like this one, be sure to buy the Sowetan newspaper from Mondays to Fridays
Undertaker walks after violation charge is lifted - body's legs cut off
A GRAHAMSTOWN funeral parlour owner who was charged with violating a corpse after two employees sawed off its legs walked free this week.
Ronel Mostert successfully applied to the court for her discharge.
Earlier two witnesses and former employees of Mostert's Siyakubonga Funeral Parlour, Mziwanele Klaas and Siphamandla Dyasi, testified to how they cut off the lower legs of Thamsanqa Tshali's corpse with an angle grinder the day before the funeral so that it would fit into a conventional coffin.
Klaas told the court he had done so on the instruction of Mostert.
He said she had given him an angle grinder and a key to the parlour where they had committed the gruesome deed.
They then put the corpse in the coffin and prepared it for burial.
The next morning Klaas said he returned the angle grinder and key to Mostert.
Mostert's lawyer Gerald Bloem said that if called to testify, Mostert would deny she had ever given any such instruction.
Instead, she would say that when Klaas had come to her with the problem of the corpse the day before the funeral she had been deeply upset.
Bloem put it to Klaas that he had comforted her and said to her: "Mama, don't worry I will make a plan."
He said Mostert would say she had no knowledge of the mutilation of the corpse.
Klaas denied that version of events.
Dyasi had been with Klaas at the time the instruction was allegedly given by Mostert but according to Klaas he did not speak Afrikaans and so he had translated her instruction to him.
At the conclusion of the state's case, Bloem successfully applied for the discharge of his client in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
In terms of section 174 if, at the close of the prosecution's case, the court is of the opinion that there is no evidence that the accused committed the offence, it may discharge and acquit the accused.
State prosecutor Lyle Prince argued there was sufficient evidence on which a court could convict and that Mostert did have a case to answer.
But, Chief Magistrate Piet van Vuuren disagreed.
He said Klaas's evidence about the instruction had effectively been that of a single witness. Klaas had been unreliable and unforthcoming and had not measured up to the cautionary rule applying to a single witness.
Mostert was acquitted and discharged.
Van Vuuren also declined to indemnify either Klaas or Dyasi from prosecution. He warned both men at the beginning of their testimony that they ran the risk of facing similar 'violating a corpse' charges if they he did not answer questions "frankly and honestly".
It was not clear yesterday whether or not the Eastern Cape director of public prosecutions would file charges against the two men.
newsdesk@sowetan.co.za
For more stories like this one, be sure to buy the Sowetan newspaper from Mondays to Fridays
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos