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 appellants appeals against their convictions are dismissed. 2. the sentences imposed by the trial court are set aside and replaced with a sentence of 20 years imprisonment in respect of each appellant. 3. in respect of the second appellant the sentence is antedated to 6 may 2011. judgment mpati p (heher and ponnan jja and southwood and erasmus ajja concurring): [1] the two appellants were charged in the pietermaritzburg high court, before koen j, sitting with an assessor, with contravening section 5(b), read with sections 1, 13(f), 17(e), 18, 19, 64 and part ii of schedule 2 of the drugs and drug trafficking act 140 of 1992 (the act), viz dealing in dangerous dependence-producing drugs (count 1). in the alternative, they were charged with contravening s 18(2)(a) of the riotous assemblies act 17 of 1956, read with s 5(b) and other relevant sections of the act, viz conspiracy to deal in dangerous dependence-producing drugs. two further charges (counts 2 and 3) were preferred against the appellants, but these were not persisted with by the state after it had closed its case, conceding that no evidence existed for a return of a verdict of guilty on the two counts. accordingly, no further reference will be made to them. [2] the appellants were convicted as charged on count 1 and were each sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. with leave of the trial court the first appellant .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:tax court, south gauteng high court, johannesburg (coppin p sitting as court of first instance): the appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel. judgment leach ja (navsa, cloete, heher and pillay jja concurring) [1] at the heart of the debate in this appeal is the method by which deductions for capital expenditure and assessed losses are to be applied in the calculation of the taxable income of a mining company which owns and operates more than one mine, not all of which operate profitably, and which also receives income from non-mining activities. as its name implies, the appellant, armgold/harmony freegold joint venture (pty) limited, is a company with limited liability established as a joint venture between the armgold and harmony groups of companies. the appellant's mining income is derived from working its three gold mines, respectively known as freegold, joel and st helena. it acquired the freegold and joel mines from the anglo-american group with effect from 1 january 2002 and the st helena mine the following year. [2] in september 2008, the respondent, the commissioner for the south african revenue service, (who for convenience i intend to refer to as sars), issued revised tax assessments for the appellant, adjusting its income tax liability for the 2002 to 2005 tax years. although sars did so on various grounds, only one is relevant to this appeal and it relates solely to the 2003 and 2004 years of assessment. for .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from western cape high court (cape town) (binns-ward j sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel, to be paid by the appellants jointly and severally. 2. the cross appeal succeeds with costs, including those of two counsel. those costs and the costs of the application for leave to cross appeal in the high court are to be paid by the appellants jointly and severally. 3. the orders of the high court are set aside. the following orders are substituted: a. the imposition of rates by the applicant on the respondents in the financial years from 2002/2003 to 2008/2009 was lawful. b. the respondents are ordered to make payment to the applicant of the amounts set out against their names, and corresponding municipal account numbers, on the schedule headed uitstaande belastings?, deposited with the registrar of the supreme court of appeal, together with interest a tempore morae, as provided in the applicants credit control policy. c. the defendant or defendants in each action in the magistrates courts are ordered to pay to the applicant the costs of the proceedings for recovery of the amounts owed by them in the magistrates courts. d. the respondents are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the applicants costs including the costs of two counsel. judgment lewis ja (nugent, bosielo, theron and wallis jja concurring) [1] the appellants are rural landowners who farm within the area of the bergrivier municipality, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: eastern cape high court, grahamstown (schoeman, roberson jj and grogan aj sitting as a court of appeal) the appeal against the sentence of imprisonment for life is dismissed. judgment bosielo ja (brand, heher, malan and pillay jja concurring): [1] the appellant was convicted on his plea of guilty of the rape his twelve year old daughter in the regional court, port elizabeth on 29 october 2009. having found no substantial and compelling circumstances as envisaged by s 51(3)(a) of the criminal law amendment act 105 of 1997 (the act) the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for life in terms of s 51(1) of the act. the appellant appealed to the eastern cape high court, grahamstown (schoeman, roberson jj and grogan aj) which dismissed the appeal on 20 december 2010 by a majority of two to one. the appellant is appealing against that judgment with the leave of the court below. [2] as the appellant had pleaded guilty to the charge, the material facts surrounding the commission of this offence are very scanty. suffice to state that the appellant admitted that he had unlawful sexual intercourse with the complainant, and, importantly that he knew that she was below the age of sixteen years at the time of the commission of the offence. in fact she was twelve years old during the sexual intercourse. [3] the nub of the appellants attack against the imposition of life imprisonment is that the majority of the members of the court erred in not finding (a) that the sentence .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: gauteng north high court (webster j sitting as court of first instance) it is ordered that: the appeal is upheld with costs and the order of the court below is altered to one dismissing the application with costs. judgment wallis ja (mpati p, nugent, ponnan and malan jja concurring) [1] ms ngwenya, the respondent, is employed by the department of international co-operation and international relations. early in 2011 she was told that she had been posted to the south african diplomatic mission in norway, which would require her to live in oslo for the following four years. she wanted to take her two grandchildren, the children of her two daughters, with her, because as the only family member in employment she had been responsible for their maintenance and upbringing. in order to facilitate this she entered into parental rights and responsibilities agreements, under s 22 of the childrens act 38 of 2005, with her daughters in respect of her grandchildren, which permitted her to take them to norway and to arrange for their education and religious upbringing as well as obliging her to maintain them. [2] on the footing of these arrangements ms ngwenya claimed to be entitled to receive in respect of each of the grandchildren the childrens allowance afforded to persons in the foreign service who are appointed to posts abroad. the department of international co-operation and international relations referred the application to the department of public service and .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... in wright v multilateral vehicle accident fund (corbett and honey. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: south gauteng high court, johannesburg (legodi j, jooste aj sitting as court of appeal): 1. the appeal against sentence succeeds. 2. the order of the court below is set aside and the following order is substituted: 3. the appeal against sentence succeeds to the extent set out below. 4. the sentence imposed by the magistrate is altered to read four months imprisonment on all counts taken together for the purposes of sentence. 5. in terms of s 282 of the criminal procedure act, the sentence is antedated to 6 september 2006, being the date on which the magistrate imposed sentence. judgment cloete ja and ndita aja (mthiyane, mhlantla and leach jja concurring) [1] this appeal is against sentence only. the appellant pleaded guilty and was convicted of 42 counts of fraud by the benoni regional court. she was sentenced as follows: counts 1 to 20, six months imprisonment on each count, and the sentences in count 11 to 20 were ordered to run concurrently with the sentences in counts 1 to 10; counts 21 to 42, one month imprisonment in respect of each count wholly suspended for a period of five years on certain conditions. effectively the appellant was to serve a total of five years imprisonment. on appeal to the high court (legodi j, jooste aj concurring), the appeal was dismissed. the appeal is before us with the leave of the court below. [2] the crisp issue before us is whether in the circumstances of this case the trial court misdirected itself in imposing a lengthy .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:north west high court, mafikeng (hendricks and kgoele jj sitting as court of appeal): 1. the appeal is upheld. 2. the conviction and sentence imposed by the magistrate are set aside and substituted with the following: the appellants conviction is quashed and the sentence is set aside. judgment tshiqi ja (navsa and wallis jja and petse and ndita ajjaconcurring) 1. the issue that determines the outcome of this appeal is whether the trial court, having decided not to have the complainant take the oath or affirmation in terms of s162 and s163 of the criminal procedure act 51 of 1977, properly administered the admonition in due compliance with s164 and s165 of the criminal procedure act. 2. the appellant was charged with rape, read with s51(1) of criminal law amendment act 105 of 1997 and with s94 of the criminal procedure act, it being alleged that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant, a female aged 24 years, who was mentally retarded. he was convicted and sentenced to the prescribed minimum term of 15 years imprisonment.1his appeal to the north west high court, mafikeng, was dismissed. he now appeals to this court with leave of that court, against both the conviction and sentence. summary of facts 3. the appellant and the complainant were neighbours and knew each other very well. it is common cause that on 31 may 2005, they were found by the second state witness, one t (also a neighbour and a close family friend) at the complainants home. t had visited .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: north gauteng high court (pretoria) (ebersohn aj sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal succeeds, with costs. 2. the order of the court a quo is set aside and the following order substituted: 'the application is dismissed, with costs.' judgment cloete ja (navsa, van heerden and leach jja, and boruchowitz aja concurring): [1] the first and second respondents, as applicants, brought motion proceedings in the north gauteng high court, pretoria against (amongst others) the appellants as the first and second respondents, for relief that depended on the valid cancellation by the appellants of a deed of sale of immovable property. ebersohn aj granted the application and refused leave to appeal. the appeal is with the leave of this court. it would be convenient to refer in this judgment to the parties as they were in the court a quo. [2] in terms of the deed of sale concluded on 26 march 2007 the respondents sold, and the applicants purchased, an erf in a township being developed by the respondents. clause 17 of the deed of sale read as follows:(language?) [3] on 6 may 2009 the applicants' attorney wrote to the respondents in the following terms:(language?) the notice of motion which followed was issued on 2 june 2009. [4] the court a quo, having quoted clause 17 of the deed of sale, reasoned as follows:(language?) [5] the court a quo ignored the respondents' contention, which was plainly and unambiguously made in the answering affidavit, that the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from:the south eastern cape high court, port elizabeth (mhlantla 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 replaced with the following order: (a) the first, second and third respondents are ordered to pay the sum of r401 252,69 to the plaintiff jointly and severally; (b) the fourth, fifth and sixth defendants are ordered to pay the sum of r151 676,18 to the plaintiff jointly and severally; (c) the seventh, eighth and ninth defendants are ordered to pay the sum of r153 107,80 to the plaintiff jointly and severally; (d) the tenth defendant is ordered to pay the sum of r7 896,47 to the plaintiff; (e) the eleventh and twelfth defendants are ordered to pay the sum of r75 069,38 to the plaintiff jointly and severally; (f) the fourteenth defendant is ordered to pay the sum of r21 478,66 to the plaintiff; (g) the defendants are ordered jointly and severally to pay interest on the respective amounts to the plaintiff at the prevailing prescribed interest rate a tempore morae; (h) the defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiffs costs of suit jointly and severally. judgment malan ja (brand, bosielo, majjiedt jja and boruchowitz aja concurring): [1] this is an appeal against the order of mhlantla j dismissing with costs the plaintiffs action against the defendants for the repayment of fees that were allegedly not due. the action was dismissed on the ground that .....
Tag this Judgment!