Famanda v S (930/2017) [2018] ZASCA 139 (28 September 2018)

Famanda v S (930/2017) [2018] ZASCA 139 (28 September 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court failed to properly consider the amount involved in the corruption offence and did not adequately address whether the appellant, a prosecutor, qualified as a 'law enforcement officer' under the relevant statutory provisions. The amount involved was R3500, and it was unclear how much the appellant personally benefitted. The court held that the seriousness of corruption must be assessed in relation to the amount involved, as recognized by the legislation. Furthermore, the definition of 'law enforcement officer' was not conclusively established to include prosecutors for the purposes of minimum sentencing. These misdirections provided...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 139
Parties
Appellant: Meshack Famanda; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2018
Case Number
930/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Petition for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal succeeds; order of court a quo set aside and substituted with grant of leave to appeal against sentence.
Judges
Maya, Van der Merwe, Nicholls
Legal Topics
Corruption, Minimum Sentencing, Definition of Law Enforcement Officer, Substantial and Compelling Circumstances
Criminal Law Corruption Minimum Sentencing Definition of Law Enforcement Officer Substantial and Compelling Circumstances

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meshack Famanda

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Petition for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in refusing the appellant leave to appeal against sentence.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court properly considered the amount involved and the appellant's status as a law enforcement officer under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court failed to properly consider the amount involved in the corruption offence and did not adequately address whether the appellant, a prosecutor, qualified as a 'law enforcement officer' under the relevant statutory provisions. The amount involved was R3500, and it was unclear how much the appellant personally benefitted. The court held that the seriousness of corruption must be assessed in relation to the amount involved, as recognized by the legislation. Furthermore, the definition of 'law enforcement officer' was not conclusively established to include prosecutors for the purposes of minimum sentencing. These misdirections provided...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds; order of court a quo set aside and substituted with grant of leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The order of court a quo is set aside and substituted with the following order: 'The appellant is granted leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the Regional Court, Johannesburg to the Gauteng Local Division of the High Court, Johannesburg.'