Kgwedi and Others S (A898/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 995 (6 November 2015)

Kgwedi and Others S (A898/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 995 (6 November 2015)

The court found that there was a misdirection in the original sentencing, specifically regarding the date of sentence and the omission of reference to counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2. The sentences imposed on counts 1, 3 and 4 were set aside and replaced with new sentences. The sentences on counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2 were confirmed. The court ordered that the sentences on counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2, and counts 3 and 4 for accused 3 and 4, shall run concurrently with the sentence on count 1. All sentences were antedated to 20 March 1997.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 995
Parties
Appellant: Alfred Kgwedi; Appellant: Elliot Komani; Appellant: Eddie Baloyi; Appellant: Hermando Sibiya; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 2015
Case Number
A898/2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Correction of Sentence
Outcome
The appeal against sentence in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 succeeds; sentences on counts 1, 3 and 4 are set aside and replaced; sentences on counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2 are confirmed; sentences are ordered to run concurrently and antedated to 20 March 1997.
Judges
Msimeki, Potterill, Tuchten
Legal Topics
Sentencing Misdirection, Appeal Against Sentence, Concurrent Sentences, Antedating of Sentence
Criminal Law Sentencing Misdirection Appeal Against Sentence Concurrent Sentences Antedating of Sentence

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Kgwedi

Appellant

Elliot Komani

Appellant

Eddie Baloyi

Appellant

Hermando Sibiya

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Correction of Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the date of sentence should be antedated to 20 March 1997 instead of 19 March 1997.
  2. 2 Whether counts 5 and 6 were properly referred to in respect of accused 1 and 2.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed on counts 1, 3 and 4 should be set aside and replaced.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was a misdirection in the original sentencing, specifically regarding the date of sentence and the omission of reference to counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2. The sentences imposed on counts 1, 3 and 4 were set aside and replaced with new sentences. The sentences on counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2 were confirmed. The court ordered that the sentences on counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2, and counts 3 and 4 for accused 3 and 4, shall run concurrently with the sentence on count 1. All sentences were antedated to 20 March 1997.

Court Disposition

The appeal against sentence in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 succeeds; sentences on counts 1, 3 and 4 are set aside and replaced; sentences on counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2 are confirmed; sentences are ordered to run concurrently and antedated to 20 March 1997.

Orders

  • Accused 3's appeal against conviction is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the sentences imposed on the four accused by the court a quo in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 succeeds.