Mokoena v S (A15/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 356 (17 May 2018)

Mokoena v S (A15/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 356 (17 May 2018)

The court found that the appellant's claim of ignorance regarding the complainant's ownership and the eviction order was not reasonably possibly true. The evidence established that the complainant lawfully acquired the property, obtained an eviction order, and attempted to take possession. The appellant and his family forcibly re-entered and occupied the property despite the eviction and police intervention. The magistrate's conclusion that the appellant was aware of the unlawful nature of his occupation was supported by the evidence. Regarding sentence, the court held that the magistrate exercised her discretion properly, considering the complainant's prolonged deprivation of her...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 356
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 right to occupy the property.
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed by the magistrate was appropriate and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant's claim of ignorance regarding the complainant's ownership and the eviction order was not reasonably possibly true. The evidence established that the complainant lawfully acquired the property, obtained an eviction order, and attempted to take possession. The appellant and his family forcibly re-entered and occupied the property despite the eviction and police intervention. The magistrate's conclusion that the appellant was aware of the unlawful nature of his occupation was supported by the evidence. Regarding sentence, the court held that the magistrate exercised her discretion properly, considering the complainant's prolonged deprivation of her...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.