In the matter between:
1.	SABONGA MQANDULI
2.	SHEBBERO NDONGENI
3.	MTHUTHUZELI NOCANDA
4.	PHELO NYANGI 
versus
THE STATE

JUDGMENT

CLEAVER, J:

The appellants were convicted in the Regional Court, Strand, on 16 March 2005, on two counts of armed robbery and thereafter sentenced to different terms of imprisonment. The first appellant was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and the others were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. With the leave of the Court they now come on appeal before us against both their convictions and the sentences.

There are a number of unfortunate aspects about this matter, not the least of which is the sorry state of the record. It is apparent from the letter compiled by the regional magistrate which forms part of the record that there was no record of certain of the tapes containing the recorded portion of the proceedings with the result that the record was completed by the regional magistrate by having her notes transcribed. In the result further, we were unable to obtain a picture of the evidence presented by the accused or their cross-examination. In the result, we are also unable to make any comment in regard to the credibility of the accused.

it is common cause that the police received a report of the robbery at about five minutes past eleven that morning and apprehended five persons travelling in a BMW motor vehicle in Lansdowne Road close to where the road from Browns Farm joins the road, and set about finding out from the persons in the vehicle what was in the vehicle. The driver was asked to open the boot, but in the course of doing so the key broke and somehow or other he managed to escape, leaving only the four appellants, all of whom denied being the robbers. It is common cause that the police found in the vehicle cash to the value of R2 881,60, three cellphones, being one Eriksson T68 and two Nokia cellphones, two bottles of KWV 10 year old brandy, one bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey and one bottle of Captain Morgan Spice Gold.

The defence put up by the appellants was that of an alibi, In brief it was to the effect that appellants 1, 3 and 4 were on their way on foot, and I am not going to dwell on the version, when the BMW drove past them. In it was appellant No 2, who was known to them, and they were invited to join the vehicle. They say they had no knowledge of the items found in the vehicle.

Having regard to the fact that the fifth man in the car escaped, and there is no evidence before us that there were five robbers, it cannot be said that the items which were found in the car were not introduced by the fifth man who ran away.

I agree.