Mamase and Others v S (175/08) [2009] ZASCA 114; 2010 (1) SACR 121 (SCA) ; [2010] 1 All SA 427 (SCA) (25 September 2009)

Mamase and Others v S (175/08) [2009] ZASCA 114; 2010 (1) SACR 121 (SCA) ; [2010] 1 All SA 427 (SCA) (25 September 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the direction issued by the National Director of Public Prosecutions under section 22(3) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act was invalid because it was made after criminal proceedings had commenced. Jurisdiction must be determined at the commencement of proceedings, and the Bhisho High Court did not have jurisdiction over the offences at that stage. The trial court had no power to decide the issue prior to plea, and its order was final and definitive, making it appealable. The proper procedure would have been to withdraw the charges, issue a new direction, and serve a fresh indictment. The appeal was upheld and the order of the court below was...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 114
Parties
Appellant: Maxwell Mamase; Appellant: Neo Moerane Mamase; Appellant: Quickvest 54 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2009
Case Number
175/08
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Bhisho High Court, Order on Jurisdiction Prior to Plea
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside.
Judges
Mpati, Farlam, Snyders, Kroon, Leach
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Courts, National Prosecuting Authority Act, Criminal Procedure Act, Validity of Prosecutorial Directions
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of High Courts National Prosecuting Authority Act Criminal Procedure Act Validity of Prosecutorial Directions

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxwell Mamase

Appellant

Neo Moerane Mamase

Appellant

Quickvest 54 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Bhisho High Court, Order on Jurisdiction Prior to Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a direction issued by the National Director of Public Prosecutions under section 22(3) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act after criminal proceedings have commenced validly confers jurisdiction on the Bhisho High Court.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court had the power to decide on jurisdiction prior to the accused entering a plea.
  3. 3 Whether the order made by the trial court was appealable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the direction issued by the National Director of Public Prosecutions under section 22(3) of the National Prosecuting Authority Act was invalid because it was made after criminal proceedings had commenced. Jurisdiction must be determined at the commencement of proceedings, and the Bhisho High Court did not have jurisdiction over the offences at that stage. The trial court had no power to decide the issue prior to plea, and its order was final and definitive, making it appealable. The proper procedure would have been to withdraw the charges, issue a new direction, and serve a fresh indictment. The appeal was upheld and the order of the court below was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court below is set aside and replaced with: 'No order is made on the application.'