Lungisa v S (CA&R159/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 48 (2 April 2019)

Lungisa v S (CA&R159/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 48 (2 April 2019)

The appellate court found no material misdirection in the trial court's factual findings. The evidence, including video footage, established that the appellant acted unlawfully in striking Kayser with the jug, and the defence of private or putative private defence was not reasonably possibly true. The appellant's version was found to be evasive, inconsistent, and contradicted by objective evidence. The seriousness of the offence, the appellant's lack of genuine remorse, and his position as a public official justified a custodial sentence. However, the condition of suspension attached to the sentence required amendment to ensure it would only be triggered by a serious offence resulting in...

Citation
[2019] ZAECGHC 48
Parties
Appellant: Andile Lungisa; Respondent: The State
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 April 2019
Case Number
CA&R159/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence succeeds only to the extent that the condition of suspension is amended.
Judges
J M Roberson, F Y Renqe
Legal Topics
Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm, Private Defence, Sentencing Principles, Credibility of Witnesses
Criminal Law Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm Private Defence Sentencing Principles Credibility of Witnesses

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

Parties

Andile Lungisa

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From the Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acted unlawfully in striking the complainant with a glass jug.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's defence of private or putative private defence was reasonably possibly true.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was appropriate given the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found no material misdirection in the trial court's factual findings. The evidence, including video footage, established that the appellant acted unlawfully in striking Kayser with the jug, and the defence of private or putative private defence was not reasonably possibly true. The appellant's version was found to be evasive, inconsistent, and contradicted by objective evidence. The seriousness of the offence, the appellant's lack of genuine remorse, and his position as a public official justified a custodial sentence. However, the condition of suspension attached to the sentence required amendment to ensure it would only be triggered by a serious offence resulting in...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence succeeds only to the extent that the condition of suspension is amended.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction is dismissed.
  • The appeal against sentence succeeds to the extent that the condition of suspension is amended by the addition of the words 'and for which the accused is sentenced to unsuspended imprisonment without the option of a fine'.