Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... an increase in penalty (which the fixing of a non-parole period is) will, therefore, ordinarily not operate retrospectively in circumstances where that additional burden did not apply at the time when the offence was committed. ..... the offences were committed on friday 8 august 1997 at a factory known as sanjon chemicals, at 4 martin drive, queensmead industrial area (malvern), in the district of pinetown. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... should be; and (c) that the facts of this case militated against the invocation of s 276b for the high court itself had found the appellant to be a good candidate for rehabilitation and that the commission of the offences of which he had been convicted was probably brought about by a unique and exceptional set of facts which [the appellant] faced and had to deal with constituting as it did a threat to [his life ..... that on a proper construction of s 276b as a whole, a sentencing courts obligation to fix the non-parole period in respect of the effective period under 276b(2) only arises once the court, after convicting the offender on two or more offences for which imprisonment is to be imposed, has decided to exercise its discretion under s 276b(1)(a) to impose a non-parole period in respect of at least one of the sentences. ..... 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. ..... section 276b provides: 276b fixing of non-parole-period (1) (a)if a court sentences a person convicted of an offence to imprisonment for a period of two years or longer, the court may as part of the sentence, fix a period during which the person shall not be placed on .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... [22] the judge elaborated further as follows: there are two circumstances in which the first respondent will face the prospect of disclosing information which may be relevant to whether he has committed the offence with which he is now charged. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... this is a serious offence but the trial court correctly balanced this against the personal circumstances of the appellant, namely that he was 35 years old, married with five dependants, that he was gainfully employed and thus economically active, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... the first appellant had a previous conviction for theft (a competent verdict on a charge of robbery) and the second appellant was convicted only three months before the commission of the offences in issue on charges of unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. ..... and endorsed in dodo that it is incumbent upon a court in every case, before it imposes a prescribed sentence, to assess, upon a consideration of all the circumstances of the particular case, whether the prescribed sentence is indeed proportionate to the particular offence. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... 5] in order to prove the ages of the complainants at the date of the alleged offences the state presented the birth certificate of the second complainant, indicating that she was born on 25 october 1990 and a clinic card in respect of the first complainant, reflecting her date of birth as 12 march 1990. ..... both complainants were approximately 13 years old at the time of the alleged offences, but were both approximately 18 years old at the time of the trial. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: western cape high court, cape town (hlophe jp sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal is upheld. 2. the conviction and sentence are set aside. judgment van der merwe aja (malan, theron and majiedt jja and zondi aja concurring): [1] during the evening of 30 or the early morning of 31 october 2004 a four year old girl was brutally raped and killed. her father, the appellant, and another person (accused 2) were tried in the western cape high court (hlophe jp) on charges of the murder, rape and indecent assault of the child. the appellant was only convicted on the charge of rape and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was granted by this court.1 [2] the evidence establishes the following relevant facts. the girl lived in harare, khayelitsha with the appellant and her mother. her mother bathed the girl during the morning of saturday 30 october 2004, as she had on the previous morning. on both occasions the girl had no injuries and her mother noticed nothing untoward. on the contrary, at around 18h00 on the saturday the girl was happily playing in the street with other children, whilst her mother was preparing to go to church. the girl wanted to go along and therefore accompanied her mother to the church, which is about a ten minute walk from their home. [3] the appellant was not at home at the time. he went to work and afterwards, at about 15h00, went to a shebeen across the street from his home. he .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
..... it is clear that the appellant and his gang committed a series of serious, premeditated offences on at least 20 occasions during the period between may 1998 until may 2000. ..... or 3 april 1995, and the commencement of the new act on 3 july 2004.2 [5] before i commence to deal with the issues for determination in this appeal, it is apposite to first give a brief background on the nature and seriousness of the offences committed by the appellant, and the modus operandi used in their commission. ..... he accordingly submits that in view of the seriousness of the offences for which he was convicted, it would be appropriate if this court substituted his sentence with that of life imprisonment. ..... [8] in any event, life imprisonment is not the prescribed sentence for any of the offences for which the appellant was convicted. ..... the offences were committed along the n1 highway between polokwane and makhado. .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: eastern cape high court, mthatha (griffiths j sitting as court of first instance): 1. the appeal is upheld and the order of the court below is set aside and replaced by the following order: (a) the application is referred for the hearing of oral evidence on the question whether the plaintiffs claim had prescribed before the service of summons. (b) the plaintiff shall appear to be examined and cross-examined at the hearing of such oral evidence. (c) the provisions of rules 35, 36, 37 and 38 shall apply to the hearing of such oral evidence. (d) the costs of the application are reserved for decision by the court hearing such oral evidence. 2. the costs of the appeal, including the costs of the application for leave to appeal, are to be costs in the application. judgment wallis ja (mthiyane dp, maya ja and van zyl and mathopo ajja concurring) [1] mr mbodla was injured in a motor accident on 25 june 2006. according to him, he was treated at the nelson mandela hospital. he complains that his treatment was negligent in various respects and on 1 november 2011 he instituted an action for damages against the mec for health, eastern cape province (the mec). the mec caused a plea to be delivered in which he raised two special pleas. the first was that mr mbodla had not complied with the requirement that he give notice of his claim to the mec within six months of the debt becoming due, as required by s 3(1)(a), read with s 3(2)(a), of the institution of legal proceedings .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
on appeal from: north gauteng high court, pretoria (makgoba j sitting as court of first instance). the appeal is dismissed with costs that include the costs of two counsel. judgment maya ja: (leach, theron and willis jja and mocumie aja concurring) [1] this is an appeal against the judgment of the north gauteng high court (makgoba j) dismissing an application for the review, setting aside and remittal for reconsideration of a decision taken by the first respondent, the commission of traditional leadership disputes and claims (the commission), and ancillary relief. the commission and the fourth and fifth respondents opposed the proceedings in the court below and the second and third respondents abided the courts decision. only the appellant and the commission are involved in this appeal, brought with the leave of this court. [2] the appellant is a traditional authorityrecognised as such in terms of the traditional leadership and governance framework act 41 of 2003 (the act)[1] and s 211 of the constitution.[2] it has a vested interest in the determination of the institution of the kingship of the bapedi community and the lineage under which it resorts. it is represented in these proceedings by kgoshi mampuru mampuru iii, its traditional leader. the fourth respondent is an opposing traditional authority, represented by its traditional leader, acting paramount kgoshi kenneth sekhukhune, in whose royal house the commission found the bapedi kingship to resort. it was cited in the .....
Tag this Judgment!