THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT

8from her, first looked briefly into the yard and then told her that Sasha Leigh wasnot there. He suggested that she look for Sasha Leigh at another neighbour’shouse. He went back into the yard and five minutes later the new tenant,accompanied by another person, arrived with a bakkie to offload a refrigerator.He spoke briefly to the new tenant who departed shortly thereafter.[24] After the tenant’s departure the appellant put his top back on. Tired ofwaiting for his mother, he left and went back to Kashief’s place. The appellanttold Kashief he had not had lunch, whereupon the latter sent two of his friends tobuy food. The appellant was adamant that all this had occurred before 14h00,because the television movie scheduled to begin at that time had not yet started.They watched television until his wife hooted outside. He accompanied his wife tothe Muizenberg flea-market where they had lunch.[25] The extent to which the dagga affected the appellant’s awareness and thequality of his evidence are aspects that will be dealt with later in this judgment.The post-mortem findings which bear on what might have happened to SashaLeigh on that Sunday will also be referred to in some detail later on.Subsequent events[26] Sasha Leigh’s disappearance and the discovery of her body were widelypublicised. First there had been pressure on the police to find her and then to findher murderer.[27] When the police arrived at the scene where Sasha Leigh’s body wasdiscovered they found certain items, which they collected as exhibits for forensictesting and which were referred to in evidence at the trial. They obtained the tinyfragment of a pressed wooden board, of the kind used in kitchen tops, andreferred to earlier in this judgment, in-between the items of clothing that coveredSasha Leigh’s body. In the vicinity of Sasha Leigh’s body they found two white