The Mpumalanga High Court in Mbombela has overturned the conviction and sentence of businessman Jacob Zenzele Mncwango, who had been slapped with 10 years behind bars for his role in a multimillion-rand fraud case involving the provincial department of land and rural development.
Mncwango was initially convicted in 2023 by the Nelspruit Regional Court on charges of fraud and two counts of money laundering.
He received a 10 year prison sentence for theft – an alternative to the main charge of fraud – and money laundering, with three years suspended for five years under certain conditions.
He was also handed an additional three-year sentence for a second money laundering count.
He was sentenced alongside former Mpumalanga department of land and rural development deputy director Grace Mokoka and co-accused Skhumbuzo Nkosi.
Businesswoman Thandi Mndawe, owner of Sadia Enterprises Trading, became a state witness.
Funds paid for work never done
Evidence during the trial revealed that Sadia Enterprises Trading had been appointed to carry out development work for the rural community of Endloveni.
However, no services were ultimately delivered.
Despite this, R2.95 million was paid into Sadia’s bank account in March 2012.
The funds were subsequently distributed to various accounts, including that of JM Mncwango Trading, a company linked to the appellant and allegedly appointed as a subcontractor for the project.
Investigating officer, Sergeant NR Bhiya, presented bank statements indicating that Sadia made three payments totalling R2.3 million to JM Mncwango Trading.
Mndawe testified that she transferred the funds after being informed by Mokoka that Mncwango’s company would serve as subcontractor.
She further stated that she had never met Mncwango prior to her arrest and that he had not attended any departmental meetings concerning the Endloveni project.
Leave to appeal application
In November 2025, Mncwango challenged his conviction on appeal, arguing that there was no proof of his direct involvement in the transactions, despite being the sole director and a signatory to his company’s bank account.
He further contended that the trial court erred in concluding that he had knowledge of the unlawful origin of the funds.
A key aspect of his appeal focused on the admissibility of bank records, which Mncwango argued did not comply with Section 236 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA).
This provision permits the use of bank records as evidence in criminal proceedings without requiring oral testimony from bank officials under oath.
Mpumalanga High Court finds evidence inadmissible
In her judgment delivered on 29 May 2026, high court judge Lindwe Vukeya found that while the bank records of JM Mncwango Trading had been confirmed by Standard Bank, the supporting affidavit by bank employee Brenda Mitchell was inadmissible hearsay because she did not testify in court.
The judge also identified “defects” in the affidavit, highlighting the absence of an official police stamp and the date on which it was deposed.
“Nothing would have prevented the respondent from calling Ms Mitchell, as the bank official, or, if no longer available, other bank officials in control of the bank statements, who could testify positively to the bank statements, in evidence for the state,” the 29 May 2026 judgment reads.
Although Bhiya acted as both investigating officer and commissioner of oaths, the court found there was no evidence to suggest that he was acting in his personal interest to get Mitchell’s statement and was merely performing his duties as a member of the South African Police Service (Saps).
However, Vukeya stressed that the law prohibits a commissioner of oaths from administering an oath in matters where they have an interest.
Irregularities in trial proceedings
The high court further identified significant procedural irregularities in the original trial because the magistrate failed to deliver a verdict on the main fraud charge, despite convicting Mncwango on the alternative count of theft.
“The magistrate convicted the appellant on the alternative charge of theft in respect of count one of fraud and was supposed to deliver a verdict of ‘not guilty’ on the main count; she, however, omitted to do so,” Vukeya said.
Additionally, the judge found no clear reasoning whether the magistrate intended to convict or to acquit Mncwango on the second count of money laundering.
“It is prudent to state that this court is justified in concluding that the appellant should have been acquitted in respect of count two.”
Vukeya upheld Mncwango’s appeal, setting aside his conviction and sentence for theft and money laundering.
He was, therefore, found not guilty and discharged on the fraud charge and the second count of money laundering.
