Lethoko and Another v Minister of Defence and Another (4338/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 160; 2021 (2) SACR 661 (FB) (16 August 2021)

Lethoko and Another v Minister of Defence and Another (4338/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 160; 2021 (2) SACR 661 (FB) (16 August 2021)

The court found that the delay in finalising the criminal proceedings, spanning from 2006 to 2021, was caused by all parties involved, including the presiding officers, applicants, and the first respondent. Despite the lengthy delay, the charges against the applicants are serious, involving theft from their employer and the public. The evidence against the applicants is strong, and they are represented by experienced counsel. The court held that the applicants did not suffer trial-related prejudice sufficient to justify a permanent stay of prosecution; other prejudices, such as loss of promotion and training, can be addressed through separate legal processes. The right to a fair trial...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 160
Parties
Applicant: Mohau Joseph Lethoko; Applicant: Mohale Samuel Marutha; Respondent: Minister of Defence and Military Veterans; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions: Free State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 August 2021
Case Number
4338/2019
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Opposed Motion for Permanent Stay of Prosecution
Outcome
Application for permanent stay of prosecution dismissed with costs, except for wasted costs on 10 June 2021.
Judges
Opperman
Legal Topics
Stay of Prosecution, Unreasonable Delay, Fair Trial Rights, Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act, Constitutional Rights, Costs Orders
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Stay of Prosecution Unreasonable Delay Fair Trial Rights Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act Constitutional Rights Costs Orders

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohau Joseph Lethoko

Applicant

Mohale Samuel Marutha

Applicant

Minister of Defence and Military Veterans

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions: Free State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Opposed Motion for Permanent Stay of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a permanent stay of prosecution due to unreasonable delay in finalising their criminal case.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in prosecution violated the applicants' constitutional right to a fair trial without unreasonable delay.
  3. 3 Whether the prejudice suffered by the applicants justifies a stay of prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the delay in finalising the criminal proceedings, spanning from 2006 to 2021, was caused by all parties involved, including the presiding officers, applicants, and the first respondent. Despite the lengthy delay, the charges against the applicants are serious, involving theft from their employer and the public. The evidence against the applicants is strong, and they are represented by experienced counsel. The court held that the applicants did not suffer trial-related prejudice sufficient to justify a permanent stay of prosecution; other prejudices, such as loss of promotion and training, can be addressed through separate legal processes. The right to a fair trial...

Court Disposition

Application for permanent stay of prosecution dismissed with costs, except for wasted costs on 10 June 2021.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted for the late filing of the Answering Affidavit of the first respondent.
  • The application for an order for a Stay of Prosecution is dismissed with costs except for the costs incurred on 10 June 2021.