Kola v S (A845/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 204 (20 May 2020)

Kola v S (A845/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 204 (20 May 2020)

The court found that while the appellant failed to provide grounds for condonation of the late appeal, the interests of justice warranted consideration of the concurrent running of sentences due to the impact on parole eligibility. The trial court's omission to order concurrency was not a misdirection in itself, but the cumulative effect of the sentences, coupled with the appellant's time already served and parole considerations, justified the appellate court's intervention. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order that the 19-year sentence imposed on 16 November 1998 run concurrently with the sentences imposed on 14 August 1997 and 20 August 1998, backdated to the date of...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 204
Parties
Appellant: Tshepo Frans Kola; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2020
Case Number
A845/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal for condonation of late filing is dismissed. Order for concurrent running of sentences is granted in the interests of justice.
Judges
BAM, MJ MOSOPA
Legal Topics
Concurrent Sentences, Parole Eligibility, Sentencing Discretion
Criminal Law Concurrent Sentences Parole Eligibility Sentencing Discretion

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

Parties

Tshepo Frans Kola

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence of 19 years imprisonment imposed on 16 November 1998 should run concurrently with previous sentences.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court's failure to order concurrent running of the sentence constitutes a misdirection justifying appellate interference.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the appeal should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the appellant failed to provide grounds for condonation of the late appeal, the interests of justice warranted consideration of the concurrent running of sentences due to the impact on parole eligibility. The trial court's omission to order concurrency was not a misdirection in itself, but the cumulative effect of the sentences, coupled with the appellant's time already served and parole considerations, justified the appellate court's intervention. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to order that the 19-year sentence imposed on 16 November 1998 run concurrently with the sentences imposed on 14 August 1997 and 20 August 1998, backdated to the date of...

Court Disposition

Appeal for condonation of late filing is dismissed. Order for concurrent running of sentences is granted in the interests of justice.

Orders

  • The sentence of 19 years imprisonment imposed on 16 November 1998 is to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed on 14 August 1997 and 20 August 1998.
  • This order is backdated to 16 November 1998.