Femel v S (CA 37/2017; R/C 66/2015) [2023] ZANWHC 144 (17 August 2023)

Femel v S (CA 37/2017; R/C 66/2015) [2023] ZANWHC 144 (17 August 2023)

The appellant failed to comply with Rule 67(5A)(a)(ii) of the Magistrates' Court Rules by not re-enrolling the appeal within 10 days after its removal from the roll. The subsequent application for a trial date was filed well out of time, and no application for reinstatement of the appeal was made. As a result, the appeal lapsed and there was no appeal before the court to be entertained. The removal of the appeal from the roll was a direct consequence of the appellant's failure to file heads of argument timeously, and the procedural requirements for reinstatement were not met.

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 144
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Dodo Femel; Respondent: The State
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 2023
Case Number
CA 37/2017; R/C 66/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Removed From Roll Due to Lapse
Outcome
Appeal removed from the roll due to lapse; no appeal before the court.
Judges
A H Petersen, R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Criminal Appeal Procedure, Magistrates Court Rules, Condonation, Reinstatement of Appeal
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Criminal Appeal Procedure Magistrates Court Rules Condonation Reinstatement of Appeal

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Dodo Femel

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Removed From Roll Due to Lapse

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant complied with Rule 67(5A)(a)(ii) of the Magistrates' Court Rules after the appeal was removed from the roll.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal could be reinstated or entertained without proper application for reinstatement.
  3. 3 Consequences of failure to re-enrol the appeal within the prescribed period.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to comply with Rule 67(5A)(a)(ii) of the Magistrates' Court Rules by not re-enrolling the appeal within 10 days after its removal from the roll. The subsequent application for a trial date was filed well out of time, and no application for reinstatement of the appeal was made. As a result, the appeal lapsed and there was no appeal before the court to be entertained. The removal of the appeal from the roll was a direct consequence of the appellant's failure to file heads of argument timeously, and the procedural requirements for reinstatement were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal removed from the roll due to lapse; no appeal before the court.

Orders

  • The appeal is removed from the roll.