Hlongo and Others v S (A140/2020;SA53/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 399 (3 March 2022)

Hlongo and Others v S (A140/2020;SA53/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 399 (3 March 2022)

The appeal court found that the trial court misdirected itself by not ordering full concurrency of sentences for the first, third, and fourth appellants, who are first offenders and whose offences were closely linked in time and place. The trial court's partial concurrency resulted in an effective sentence equal to that of the second appellant, a repeat offender, which was unjustified. The court held that the entire sentence for count 2 and the sentence for count 3 should run concurrently with count 1 for these appellants, resulting in an effective sentence of fifteen years. For the second appellant, the court found that the twenty-year sentence should run concurrently with the...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 399
Parties
Appellant: Armando Hlongo; Appellant: Steve Masinga; Appellant: Lapito Nyalunge; Appellant: Jito Artuk Nyamashe; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 March 2022
Case Number
A140/2020;SA53/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal succeeds to the extent that sentences are varied to provide for full concurrency as specified.
Judges
Phahlane, Motha
Legal Topics
Minimum Sentences Act, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Concurrent Sentences, Sentencing Discretion, Immigration Act Offence
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Minimum Sentences Act Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Concurrent Sentences Sentencing Discretion Immigration Act 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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Armando Hlongo

Appellant

Steve Masinga

Appellant

Lapito Nyalunge

Appellant

Jito Artuk Nyamashe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in failing to order full concurrency of sentences for counts 1 and 2 for the first, third, and fourth appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the effective sentence imposed on the second appellant should run concurrently with a previously imposed sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion and considered substantial and compelling circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the trial court misdirected itself by not ordering full concurrency of sentences for the first, third, and fourth appellants, who are first offenders and whose offences were closely linked in time and place. The trial court's partial concurrency resulted in an effective sentence equal to that of the second appellant, a repeat offender, which was unjustified. The court held that the entire sentence for count 2 and the sentence for count 3 should run concurrently with count 1 for these appellants, resulting in an effective sentence of fifteen years. For the second appellant, the court found that the twenty-year sentence should run concurrently with the...

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds to the extent that sentences are varied to provide for full concurrency as specified.

Orders

  • In respect of the first, third, and fourth appellants, the sentence of fifteen years on count 2 and six months on count 3 shall run concurrently with the sentence of fifteen years on count 1.
  • The effective term of imprisonment for the first, third, and fourth appellants is fifteen years.