Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... he gave instructions for letters to this effect to be drafted but before they could be signed by him, mishap struck when he was involved in a motor accident which resulted in him taking sick leave for six weeks. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:western cape high court (henney j sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal is upheld with costs including the costs of two counsel. 2. the order of the court below is set aside and in its stead is substituted the following: 1 it is ordered in terms of s 163(2)(f)(i) of the companies act 71 of 2008 that: 1..1 mr b j manca sc, a senior advocate practising at the cape bar, and mr louis strydom, a senior chartered accountant (sa) of pricewaterhouse coopers inc, are appointed independent directors of seena marena investments (pty) ltd. 2. the independent directors appointed in terms of paragraph 1.1 of this order shall have the sole right, in their absolute discretion, to the exclusion of any other directors nominated by the shareholders of seena marena investments (pty) ltd, to determine whether an investigation into the affairs of seena marena investments (pty) ltd, in the light of the complaints made on behalf of grancy property limited, is necessary and if so to conduct such an investigation. 3. the said independent directors may not be removed as directors save by a unanimous vote of the shareholders of seena marena investments (pty) ltd or an order of the high court, having jurisdiction. 4. the independent directors shall constitute the board of directors of seena marena investments (pty) ltd together with such directors as each of the shareholders may appoint to the board save that each shareholder shall be entitled to appoint only one director. 5. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: limpopo high court, thohoyandou (booi aj, sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. the appeal against the sentence of life imprisonment is upheld and the sentence of the court below is set aside and replaced with the following: the accused is sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. 3. the sentence is antedated to 14 march 2011. judgment majiedt ja (mthiyane dp, cachalia ja, erasmus and saldulker ajja concurring): [1] the appellant, mr samson mawela mudau, was convicted in the limpopo high court, thohoyandou, of the rape of a thirteen year old girl and sentenced to life imprisonment. he appeals against both his conviction and sentence with leave of the court below. [2] the facts underlying the conviction are briefly as follows. the appellant is the childs uncle. he had been requested by the childs mother to, in her absence, assist the child with an application for admission to a high school. at the time, the child was residing with her grandmother. on the day of the incident the appellant left a message with the grandmother for the child to go to his house, which was close by, to assist her to complete forms for admission to the school. [3] the child testified that the appellant was alone when she arrived at his home. he asked her whether she was sexually active. she denied that she was, and added that her grandmother would confirm this. he then asked her to show him her panties. she obliged and he forcefully inserted .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:kwazulu-natal high court, pietermaritzburg (koen j sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal is upheld. 2. the order of the court below fixing a non-parole period of 13 years is set aside. judgment petse ja (maya, shongwe, leach jja and mbha aja concurring): [1] the principal issue for determination in this appeal is whether s 276b(2) of the criminal procedure act 51 of 1977 (the act) impels a court which sentences a person to imprisonment, following a conviction for two or more offences where the sentences of imprisonment are ordered to run concurrently, to fix a non-parole period in respect of the effective period of imprisonment. the subsidiary issue is whether or not the appellant had a right to be heard before the court below invoked s 276b(2) of the act. [2] it is necessary at the outset to mention, by way of background, a brief narrative of certain facts and circumstances, which bear on the questions to be decided in this appeal, as they emerge from the record. [3] the appellant was convicted in the kwazulu-natal high court, pietermaritzburg (koen j) on one count of murder, possession of a fully automatic firearm (an ak47 assault rifle) without a licence to possess such firearm and possession of five rounds of live ammunition (7.62 mm) without the required licence. [4] he was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment on the murder count and five years for both unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm and ammunition. the court below directed that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... [2] the regional court magistrate came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of murder on the basis of dolus eventualis in that: he foresaw that what he did would cause an accident, but he decided to adopt an: (sic! ..... his actions after the shooting are incongruous with his plea that it was all an unfortunate accident. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... he would always apologise thereafter, claiming it was an accident. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:north gauteng high court (pretoria) (zondo j sitting as court of first instance): 1. the first, second, third, fourth and fifth appellants appeals are dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of three counsel. 2. subject to the amendment of order 1.1 all the orders of the court a quo are confirmed. order 1.1 is replaced by the following order: it is declared that as a result of the first applicants (siocs) conversion of its old order mining right in respect of iron ore and quartzite on the table i properties (the properties described in annexure b? to siocs amended notice of motion) in accordance with item 7(3) of schedule ii to the mineral and petroleum resources development act 28 of 2002 (mprda) and the second applicants failure to convert its old order right in respect of iron ore and quartzite on these properties, the first applicant became, with effect from midnight on 30 april 2009, the exclusive holder of a mining right (siocs converted mining right) in respect of iron ore and quartzite on the table i properties. 3. the first respondents conditional cross-appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of three counsel, where employed. judgment southwood aja (brand, lewis, cachalia jja and swain aja concurring): [1] when the mining and petroleum resources development act 28 of 2002 (mprda) and its transitional arrangements (set out in schedule ii to the act) came into operation, the first respondent, sishen iron ore company .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: the labour appeal court, cape town (murphy aja, waglay djp and davis ja sitting as court of appeal). the appeal is dismissed with costs that include the costs of two counsel. judgment maya ja (nugent, pillay jja, plasket and mbha ajja concurring) [1] this is an appeal from a judgment of the labour appeal court (the lac, per murphy aja, waglay djp and davis ja concurring), with special leave of this court. the lac upheld the decision of the labour court (cele j) that the dismissals of the second to sixth respondents (the respondents) were automatically unfair as contemplated in section 187(1)(f) of the labour relations act 66 of 1995 (the lra). as a basis for its conclusion, the labour court had found that the respondents were unlawfully subjected to gender discrimination. on appeal, the lac added two grounds of discrimination, religion and culture, as further support for the finding. [2] the facts are largely common cause. the respondents are male former correctional officers of the first appellant (the department). all were members of the first respondent, a trade union, and held various positions at pollsmoor prison, cape town (pollsmoor) at the time of their dismissals in june 2007. they each had long service with the department and were exemplary employees. a common feature among them was their hairstyle. they all wore dreadlocks albeit for different reasons. it is their refusal to cut their hair when ordered to do so under the departments corporate .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:kwazulu-natal high court (durban) (swain j sitting as court of first instance): the appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed. the appellant is ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. judgment southwood aja: [1] the appellant is the food and allied workers union (fawu), a trade union registered in terms of the labour relations act 66 of 1995 (lra). the respondents are l ngcobo, the executrix in the estate of the late mandla ndlela (ndlela), and michael mkhize (mkhize). ndlela and mkhize instituted separate actions against fawu in the kwazulu- natal high court, durban in which they claimed damages for breach of contract. after litis contestatio, ndlela passed away and he was substituted as plaintiff by l ngcobo, the executrix in his estate, but, for the sake of convenience, i shall continue to refer to ndlela as the litigating party. the actions were consolidated and the claims were successful before the high court (swain j) which awarded damages in the sum of r107 232 to each respondent together with interest thereon at the rate of 15.5 per cent per annum from 28 august 2004 to date of payment. with the leave of the court a quo, fawu appeals and the respondents cross-appeal against the awards. fawu contends that the respondents claims should have been dismissed and the respondents contend that the awards should have been double what the court a quo awarded. at the hearing the respondents counsel did not persist with the cross-appeal. [2] ndlela and mkhize each .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: north gauteng high court, pretoria (makgoba j et davis aj sitting as court of appeal): the appeal against sentence is dismissed. judgment mbha aja (mthiyane dp, shongwe jja et schoeman, swain ajja concurring) [1] this is an appeal against the judgment and order of the north gauteng high court (per makgoba j et davis aj), in terms of which a sentence of 275 years imprisonment that was imposed by the regional magistrate court, pietersburg (the trial court), was upheld. [2] the appellant was convicted by the trial court, consequent to his plea of guilty, on 60 counts involving robbery committed with aggravating circumstances, attempted murder, kidnapping, rape, attempted rape and pointing a firearm. this appeal, which is against sentence only, is with the leave of this court. [3] the appeal raises the important issue of the appropriateness of the sentence imposed and the impact of the relevant provisions of the applicable legislation governing the eligibility to parole of prisoners serving determinate sentences, on such sentence. ultimately, what has to be determined, is what parole period should apply to the appellants determinate sentence. [4] the appellants complaint is that, as he was sentenced on 17 january 2001, his eligibility to be considered for parole is governed by the provisions of s 65(4) of the correctional services act 8 of 1959 (the old act), which means that he will only be considered for parole after serving half of his sentence, unless the date .....
Tag this Judgment!