Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... section 51(1) provides: notwithstanding any other law, but subject to subsection (3) and (6), a regional court or a high court shall sentence a person it has convicted of an offence referred to in part i of schedule 2 to imprisonment for life. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... [11] it is common cause that both the complainant and her brother are young, children, who would not be aware of the legal requirements to establish the offence of rape. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... but in so far as the third appellant is concerned, his conviction on a charge of rape was, in terms of s 268 of the criminal procedure act 51 of 1977, substituted with a contravention of s 14(1)(a) of the sexual offences act 23 of 1957.1the sentence imposed by the high court was substituted with one of six years imprisonment antedated to 20 march 2007. ..... [3] section 522of the act as it then applied required a regional court, when it has convicted an accused person of an offence for which life imprisonment is the prescribed sentence, to stop the proceedings and commit the accused for sentence to a high court having jurisdiction. ..... the third appellant, on his evidence and that of the complainant, was guilty of contravening s 14(1)(a)of the sexual offences act in that the complainant was 15 years old at the time when intercourse took place. ..... since repealed by the criminal law (sexual offences and related matters) amendment act 32 of 2007. 2. ..... the third appellants appeal against conviction on a charge of rape is upheld, but he is convicted, in terms of s 268 of the criminal procedure act 51 of 1977, of the offence of contravening s 14(1)(a) of the sexual offences act 23 of 1957. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... unfortunately, violent crime of this nature is endemic in this country and, in an attempt to combat offences of this nature, the legislature has provided a prescribed minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment for a first offender who commits the offence of robbery with aggravating circumstances see s 51(2)(a)(i) of the criminal law amendment act 105 of 1997 as read with part ii of schedule 2 of that act. ..... [6] in arguing that the effective sentence of 30 years imprisonment was far too severe, it was stressed on the appellants behalf that he had been a first offender, in his mid-twenties at the time he committed the offences and that he had spent some seven months in detention before sentence had been imposed. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... criminally liable in terms of section 424 read with s 441 of the companies act 61 of 1973; that the promoters, and possibly others, did not comply with the requirements of notice 459 and therefore committed a criminal offence punishable by a fine not exceeding r200 000 and or imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years, or by both that fine and that imprisonment; and that the promoters contravened s 11 of the banks act 94 of 1990 and ..... the notice also provided that any person who did not comply with the requirements of the notice would commit a criminal offence and would be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding r200 000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years, or to both that fine and that imprisonment.1 [8] spitskop was incorporated on 18 april 2006 under the name of .....
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: north gautenghigh court, pretoria (vorster aj sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal is upheld with costs. 2. the order of the high court is set aside and in its stead is substituted the following order: the special plea is dismissed with costs. 3. the matter is referred back to the high court for adjudication on the particulars of claim and the substantive defence. judgment theron ja (lewis, bosielo, theron and willis jja and legodi ajaconcurring): [1] the appellant, royal sechaba holdings (pty) ltd (royal sechaba), instituted action against the respondents, mr grant william coote (coote), and mr daniel elardus engelbrecht (engelbrecht), the first and second respondents, respectively, in the north gauteng high court for payment of damages of r13 122 516 alternatively r4 140 000, for an alleged breach, by them, of their fiduciary duties. the respondents raised a special plea of issue estoppel. the high court (vorster aj) upheld the special plea and dismissed royal sechabas claim with costs. this appeal is against that judgment, with the leave of the high court. [2] in order to determine whether the special plea was properly upheld, it is necessary to examine the factual background giving rise to this litigation. coote and engelbrecht were employees and directors of royal sechaba. from february 2007 to september 2009, coote was the companys chief executive officer and engelbrecht its chief operating officer. on 1 august 2006, royal sechaba and mr .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... and in terms of the amended ss (5) a man who made a false declaration with regard to the existence or otherwise of a customary union between him and any woman made himself guilty of an offence. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: western cape high court, cape town (meer j sittingas court of first instance): 1. the appeal is upheld. 2. the respondents are directed to pay the appellants costs in the appeal, including the costs of two counsel, jointly and severally. 3. the order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following: 3. 1 the application is dismissed. 3.2 the applicants are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the respondents costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel. judgment bosielo ja(brand, ponnan, cachalia and shongwe jja concurring): [1] this is an appeal against the judgment and order of the western cape high court (meer j) granted on17 september 2012 in terms whereof the court granted the following order: it is ordered: 1. it is declared as follows: 1.1 in terms of the deed of sale concluded between the applicants and the first respondent, a copy of which is annexure jwh2? to the founding affidavit of the first applicant, the first respondent undertook to construct and/or be provided at the kingswood golf estate a clubhouse, duly furnished in accordance with the upmarket quality and nature of the proposed development (the clubhouse), within a reasonable period after the date of conclusion of the sale agreement, being 10 march 2004; 1.2 a reasonable period for the construction of the clubhouse has elapsed; 1.3 the first respondent has not constructed the clubhouse contemplated in the sale agreement; 1.4 the first respondent .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... the first appellant was also convicted on a count of the contravention of s 37 of the general law amendment act 62 of 1955 (receiving stolen property), as a competent verdict on the offence the appellants had originally been charged with, namely theft of a motor vehicle. .....
Tag this Judgment!