Matube v S (Leave to Appeal) (CC76/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1110 (18 October 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 1110
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Strijdom
- Case number
- CC76/2016
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Strijdom
- Case number
- CC76/2016
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the murders were premeditated and that no substantial or compelling circumstances existed to justify deviation from the minimum prescribed sentence of life imprisonment. The applicant showed no remorse and pleaded not guilty to the murder and attempted murder charges. Upon examination of the facts and law, the court concluded that there is no sound or rational basis to find that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, condonation for late filing was granted, but leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
Orders
- Condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal is granted.
- The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Tladinyana Jacob Matube
ApplicantThe State
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Sentence for Theft (count 1): ZAR 6
- Sentence for Murder (count 2): ZAR 0
- Sentence for Murder (count 3): ZAR 0
- Sentence for Attempted Murder (count 4): ZAR 5
- Sentence for Attempted Murder (count 5): ZAR 5
- Sentence for Unlawful Possession of a Firearm (count 6): ZAR 4
- Sentence for Unlawful Possession of Ammunition (count 7): ZAR 3
03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
- 02
Whether the applicant has demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal against sentence.
- 03
Whether there are substantial or compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment for premeditated murder.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the sentences imposed, particularly the life imprisonment for murder, are excessive and that there exist substantial and compelling circumstances warranting a lesser sentence. He maintains his plea of not guilty and argues that the court erred in its findings and application of the law.
- Respondent
- The respondent argues that the sentences imposed are appropriate given the gravity of the offences, especially the premeditated nature of the murders. The respondent submits that no substantial or compelling circumstances exist to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences and that the applicant has not demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
Leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge is of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or if there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
- 02
Section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013
The threshold for granting leave to appeal against a judgment of a high court has been raised; the use of 'would' indicates a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the murders were premeditated and that no substantial or compelling circumstances existed to justify deviation from the minimum prescribed sentence of life imprisonment. The applicant showed no remorse and pleaded not guilty to the murder and attempted murder charges. Upon examination of the facts and law, the court concluded that there is no sound or rational basis to find that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success. Accordingly, condonation for late filing was granted, but leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The threshold for granting leave to appeal has been raised under the Superior Courts Act, requiring a measure of certainty that another court would differ.
- The applicant's lack of remorse and the premeditated nature of the offences weighed heavily against granting leave to appeal.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
- Condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal is granted.
- The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: CC76/2016
DATE: 18-03-2024
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 18/10/2024
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between
TLADINYANA
JACOB MATUBE
Applicant
and
THE
STATE
Respondent
JUDGMENT
LEAVE TO APPEAL
STRIJDOM, J: The court then proceed with the ex-tempore judgment in this application for leave to appeal against sentence:
1. This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentences that this court imposed on 28 July 2017.
2. The accused was sentenced as follows:
2.1 Count 1, theft. Six years' imprisonment.
2.2 Count 2, murder. Life imprisonment.
2.3 Count 3, murder. Life imprisonment.
2.4 Count 4, attempted murder. Five years' imprisonment.
2.5 Count 5, attempted murder. Five years' imprisonment.
2.6 Count 6, unlawful possession of a firearm. Four years' imprisonment.
2.7 Count 7, unlawful possession of ammunition.
Three years' imprisonment.
3. It was ordered that the sentences run concurrently.
4. The accused was declared unfit to possess a firearm.
5. Condonation is granted for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal.
6. The applicant's grounds of appeal are set out in the application for leave to appeal. The court is not going to repeat that.
7. In this matter the court found that the two murders were committed, were pre-planned or premeditated and that no substantial or compelling circumstances exist to deviate from the minimum prescribed sentence of life imprisonment. The accused has pleaded not guilty on the murder charges and the attempted murder charges and showed no remorse when he testified in mitigation of sentence.
Now in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 provides that:
"Leave to appeal may only be granted where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success or if there is some compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration."
10. It is clear that the threshold for granting leave to appeal against a judgment of a high court has been raised in the new Act. The use of the word 'would' in the new Act indicates a measure of certainty that another court will differ from the court whose judgment is sought to be appealed against.
11. In respect of all the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant my judgment deals with facts and the law as presented by the parties and how the court arrived at each conclusion on the contentions raised by the parties.
12. When the facts and the law were examined, there is in my view no sound or rational basis for the conclusion that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success.
13 In the result the following order is made:
ORDER
1. Condonation is granted.
2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
STRIJDOM,
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE: ..................
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.