Mokoena v S (A15/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 387 (17 May 2018)

Mokoena v S (A15/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 387 (17 May 2018)

The court found no reason to interfere with the magistrate's findings on conviction or sentence. The evidence established that the appellant was aware of the complainant's ownership and the eviction order, particularly after the police attended the property. The appellant's continued occupation of the property was unlawful. The sentence imposed was not found to be shocking or inappropriate, given the complainant's prolonged denial of access to her property and the appellant's disregard for her rights.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 387
Parties
Appellant: Kgopotso Given Mokoena; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2018
Case Number
A15/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
Judges
AC Basson, Strijdom
Legal Topics
Trespassing, Eviction, Sentencing Discretion
Criminal Law Land and Property Trespassing Eviction 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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kgopotso Given Mokoena

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was lawfully convicted of trespassing.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was aware of the complainant's ownership and eviction order.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no reason to interfere with the magistrate's findings on conviction or sentence. The evidence established that the appellant was aware of the complainant's ownership and the eviction order, particularly after the police attended the property. The appellant's continued occupation of the property was unlawful. The sentence imposed was not found to be shocking or inappropriate, given the complainant's prolonged denial of access to her property and the appellant's disregard for her rights.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.