Court upholds conviction of business owner in violent workplace assault case

A GAUTENG businessman who assaulted his employee so severely the victim required hospital treatment has failed in his High Court bid to overturn his conviction.

Imraan Chothia, who received a suspended sentence for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, had claimed the employee fabricated allegations to extort money.

Imraan Chothia, who was convicted and sentenced for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm(GBH), had his appeal dismissed in the Gauteng High Court last week. 

According to the court papers, Chothia was charged following the assault which occurred at Salamat Motors (Cradlestone branch) in Krugersdorp on August 19, 2020, and was convicted in July 2022. 

On February 16, 2023, he was sentenced to three years imprisonment, wholly suspended for a period of four years, on condition that he paid a compensation of R150 000 to the complainant, and that he was not convicted of assault committed during the period of suspension. 

According to the court papers, the complainant, Siyabonga Sphelele Mthiyane, testified that Chothia slapped him, grabbed him by his clothing, dragged him into the office, and, together with others, assaulted him, including kicking him in the genital area. 

He said following the assault he was in a state of severe pain and was semi-conscious. 

Mthiyane said after regaining consciousness, he was given water before arrangements were made for him to be taken for medical care.

He said he was first treated at the Azaadville clinic, where he was given an injection and pills in an attempt to stabilise him. 

However, Mthiyane said that he was still unwell when discharged from the clinic, and due to his continuing serious condition, he was subsequently transferred to Carletonville Hospital, where he described his state as worse, saying he “felt dead and could not feel himself”. 

He said at the hospital he received more substantial treatment.

The J88 medico-legal report later confirmed injuries consistent with his version of being assaulted and kicked in the genital area.

According to the court papers, Chothia who testified in his defence, admitted being present at the branch on the day in question, but claimed his purpose was to meet Warrant Officer Bester in relation to a case of a stolen vehicle. 

He denied calling Mthiyane into the office or assaulting him. 

Chothia said instead that another employee, Katlego, was brought into the office and later fled, bleeding.

According to the court papers, Chothia denied that any assault took place in his presence and that Mthiyane subsequently fabricated allegations for the purpose of extorting money from him. 

He referred to telephone calls and SMSs demanding money ranging from R700 to R2.6 million. 

According to the court papers, the defence further relied on the evidence of Bester, who confirmed that he was present at the branch on the said date.

He testified that he interviewed a man named Katlego regarding extortion calls, and that Chothia waited outside. 

Bester denied ever seeing Mthiyane or that any assault on him had taken place in his presence. 

He said he recorded an entry in the occurrence book about Katlego fleeing and injuring himself.

Bester testified that he saw blood on Katlego’s face and head after hearing the sound of a window breaking. 

Judge Steven Kuny, in handing judgement, said Chothia and Bester both placed themselves at the scene at the relevant time.

He said the admitted circumstances pointed to the inevitable conclusion that there was a direct and forceful confrontation at the company’s premises on the day in question with suspects regarding the alleged stolen vehicle. 

Judge Kuny said Mthiyane’s evidence that he was confronted with a cell phone recording and asked to identify the voice confirms that he was one of the suspects.

He said Chothia and Bester’s denials were narrowly framed, and taking the evidence as a whole, were designed to shield themselves rather than to present a full and candid account of the events.

“The evidence of the appellant (Chothia) and Bester that they knew nothing about the assault on the complainant (Mthiyane) is not credible. Their presence at the scene, the evidence of blood, the existence of cell phone recordings, and the timing of events point to their knowledge of the incident. 

“In my view, their testimony does not withstand scrutiny when compared against the complainant’s unwavering evidence about the attack and the objective corroborative facts,” he said. 

Judge Kuny said in weighing the totality of the evidence, the court found that Mthiyane’s evidence, despite peripheral inconsistencies, was truthful and reliable in its material respects. 

“His version is corroborated by the J88 medical report.” 

 Judge Kuny said Chothia’s denial was improbable, self-serving, and not supported by independent evidence. 

He said Bester’s evidence did not detract from the State’s case and, if anything, reinforced the suspicion surrounding the Chothiat’s denial.

“Although the complainant could not identify with absolute certainty which person landed any particular blows on him, there can be no doubt of the appellant’s participation in the assault. The appellant was present and therefore aware of the assault. Even if it could not be proven with certainty that the appellant landed any particular blow on the complainant, the evidence showed that he made common cause with the assailants and acted in concert with them.

“In my view, the trial court did not misdirect itself in weighing up the evidence and in assessing the charges against the appellant. Looking at the facts of the case as a whole, the appellant's version was correctly rejected as false beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said. 

Judge Kuny said the assault upon Mthiyane was of an aggravated nature. 

“There can be no doubt that it was committed with the intent to cause grievous bodily harm. In my view, the sentence imposed on the appellant for such a serious assault was lenient,” he said.

POST