Gamede and Another v S (161/2010) [2010] ZASCA 122 (30 September 2010)

Gamede and Another v S (161/2010) [2010] ZASCA 122 (30 September 2010)

The court found that the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that both farms were used for the manufacture of mandrax and that both appellants participated in the operation. The first appellant was found to have knowingly assisted in removing incriminating evidence, and her conduct fell within the statutory definition of dealing in drugs. The second appellant was apprehended with anthranilic acid, a substance used in mandrax production, and his repeated presence on the farm with those involved in manufacturing further implicated him. The court held that both convictions were justified. However, the sentences imposed were reconsidered. The first appellant's role was limited to...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 122
Parties
Appellant: Nomvula Gamede; Appellant: Tanjane Justice Makunga; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2010
Case Number
161/2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; appeals against sentence upheld.
Judges
Nugent, Mhlantla, Ebrahim
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, Minimum Sentencing, Evidence, Role in Offence
Criminal Law Drug Trafficking Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act Minimum Sentencing Evidence Role in Offence

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

Parties

Nomvula Gamede

Appellant

Tanjane Justice Makunga

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Kwa Zulu Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence justified the conviction of the appellants for dealing in mandrax under the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the roles of the appellants in the offence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that both farms were used for the manufacture of mandrax and that both appellants participated in the operation. The first appellant was found to have knowingly assisted in removing incriminating evidence, and her conduct fell within the statutory definition of dealing in drugs. The second appellant was apprehended with anthranilic acid, a substance used in mandrax production, and his repeated presence on the farm with those involved in manufacturing further implicated him. The court held that both convictions were justified. However, the sentences imposed were reconsidered. The first appellant's role was limited to...

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed; appeals against sentence upheld.

Orders

  • In each case the appeal against the conviction is dismissed.
  • In each case the appeal against the sentence is upheld.