Molaudzi v S (CCT 126/13) [2014] ZACC 15; 2014 (7) BCLR 785 (CC) (20 May 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] ZACC 15
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Panel
- Skweyiya, Cameron, Dambuza, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Zondo
- Case number
- CCT 126/13
More details
- Court
- Constitutional Court
- Panel
- Skweyiya, Cameron, Dambuza, Froneman, Jafta, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Zondo
- Case number
- CCT 126/13
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's challenge was based solely on the factual findings of the trial court and did not raise a constitutional issue. The Court found no reasonable prospects of success in the appeal, as the Full Court had properly considered and rejected the applicant's arguments. Regarding the delay in obtaining the trial record, the Court expressed concern and censure, noting that such delays are unacceptable and may render a trial unfair. However, in this case, the record was eventually completed and the appeal was fairly assessed. The Court emphasized the duty of judicial officers to prevent egregious delays and noted that the matter had been reported and investigated by the Judicial Services Commission. Consequently, leave to appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is dismissed.
Orders
- Leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The Registrar is requested to forward a copy of this judgment to the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Mahikeng Justice Centre, Lawyers for Human Rights and the Judge President of the Mahikeng High Court.
02
Material facts
Parties
Thembekile Molaudzi
ApplicantThe State
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the applicant's attack on the factual findings of the trial court raises a constitutional issue for the Constitutional Court to entertain.
- 02
Whether the delay in obtaining the trial record and hearing the appeal infringed the applicant's fair trial rights.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contended that he was wrongly convicted and sought leave to appeal on the basis that the factual findings of the trial court were incorrect. He also raised concerns about the significant delay in obtaining the trial record, which he argued impacted his right to a fair trial and appeal.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the application for leave to appeal did not raise a constitutional issue, as it was based solely on factual findings. The respondent maintained that the delay, while regrettable, did not result in an unfair trial or appeal, as the record was eventually completed and the appeal was properly considered.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Boesak [2000] ZACC 25; 2001 (1) SA 912 (CC); 2001 (1) BCLR 36 (CC) at para 15.
An application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court must raise a constitutional issue; mere attacks on factual findings do not suffice.
- 02
Section 35(3)(d) of the Constitution; Sanderson v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape [1997] ZACC 18; 1998 (2) SA 38 (CC); 1997 (12) BCLR 1675 (CC) at paras 24 and 41.
Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's challenge was based solely on the factual findings of the trial court and did not raise a constitutional issue. The Court found no reasonable prospects of success in the appeal, as the Full Court had properly considered and rejected the applicant's arguments. Regarding the delay in obtaining the trial record, the Court expressed concern and censure, noting that such delays are unacceptable and may render a trial unfair. However, in this case, the record was eventually completed and the appeal was fairly assessed. The Court emphasized the duty of judicial officers to prevent egregious delays and noted that the matter had been reported and investigated by the Judicial Services Commission. Consequently, leave to appeal was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- Delay in trial or appeal proceedings may jeopardize the fairness of the process, and judicial officers must ensure such delays do not occur.
- The unacceptable delay in compiling the trial record could have prejudiced the applicant's right to a fair appeal, but fortunately, the record was eventually completed.
Court disposition
Leave to appeal is dismissed.
- Leave to appeal is dismissed.
- The Registrar is requested to forward a copy of this judgment to the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Mahikeng Justice Centre, Lawyers for Human Rights and the Judge President of the Mahikeng High Court.
Source and reliance status
Constitutional Court
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.
Constitutional Court
Judgment
CONSTITUTIONAL
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case CCT 126/13
In the matter between:
THEMBEKILE MOLAUDZI..............................................................................................Applicant
and
THE STATE...................................................................................................................... Respondent
Neutral citation: S v Molaudzi [2014] ZACC 15
Coram: Skweyiya ADCJ, Cameron J, Dambuza AJ, Froneman J, Jafta J, Madlanga J, Mhlantla AJ, Nkabinde J and Zondo J
Decided on: 20 May 2014
Summary: Criminal law – appeal against conviction – attack based on factual findings – no constitutional issue arising – application dismissed – unacceptable delay in obtaining the trial record
ORDER
On appeal from the North West High Court, Mahikeng, it is ordered that:
1. Leave to appeal is dismissed.
2. The Registrar is requested to forward a copy of this judgment to the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Mahikeng Justice Centre, Lawyers for Human Rights and the Judge President of the Mahikeng High Court.
JUDGMENT
THE
COURT
[1] The applicant was convicted, together with a number of co-accused, by the North West High Court, Mahikeng (High Court), of murder and robbery of an off duty policeman and for being in possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence. They were sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and an additional 21 years for the remaining crimes. The applicant sought and was granted leave to appeal to the Full Court. The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court of Appeal refused an application for further leave to it.
[2] The applicant now seeks leave to this Court essentially on the basis that he was wrongly convicted. The application cannot succeed. It is based on an attack on the factual findings made in the trial court. That does not raise a proper constitutional issue for this Court to entertain.[1] In addition, there are no reasonable prospects of success. The Full Court considered the arguments on appeal and properly rejected them. The application for leave to appeal must thus be dismissed.
[3] There is, however, one aspect that calls for comment and censure. The applicant was sentenced on 22 July 2004. The appeal was only heard by the Full Court on 7 December 2012. How did this come about?
[4] The applicant alleges that subsequent to his conviction and sentencing he applied for leave to appeal, but was told that he had to obtain a copy of the trial record before his application could be considered. The trial judge only signed a copy of the record in October 2008. The record was incomplete and the applicant was told that the trial judge was attempting to reconstruct the record from her trial notes. Only after intervention by the Mahikeng Justice Centre and Lawyers for Human Rights did the applicant receive the full trial record in 2012, some eight years after his conviction and sentence.
[5] This is unacceptable. Delay in trial proceedings may render a trial unfair.[2] It is not necessary to decide whether a delay in appeal proceedings might also be considered a breach of fair trial rights,
because here the record was eventually properly completed and available for a fair assessment of the matter on appeal. It
could easily have been otherwise if the compilation of a proper record became impossible because of a lapse of time. Judicial
officers have a duty to ensure that egregious delays of this kind do not occur. In view of the fact that the delay was reported to and investigated by the Judicial Services Commission it is not necessary to comment any further on the reasons for the delay.
[6] In the result the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. The Registrar is requested to forward a copy of this judgment to the office of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, the Mahikeng Justice Centre, Lawyers for Human Rights and the Judge President of the Mahikeng High Court.
[1] See Mbatha v University of Zululand [2013] ZACC 43 at paras 193-7 and 215-24; Phoebus Apollo Aviation CC v Minister of Safety and Security [2002] ZACC 26; 2003 (2) SA 34 (CC); 2003 (1) BCLR 14 (CC) at para 9; and S v Boesak [2000] ZACC 25; 2001 (1) SA 912 (CC); 2001 (1) BCLR 36 (CC) at para 15.
[2] See Sanderson v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape [1997] ZACC 18; 1998 (2) SA 38 (CC); 1997 (12) BCLR 1675 (CC) at paras 24 and 41, and section 35(3)(d) of the Constitution which states that: “Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay.”
[2] See Sanderson v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape [1997] ZACC 18; 1998 (2) SA 38 (CC); 1997 (12) BCLR 1675 (CC) at paras 24 and 41, and section 35(3)(d) of the Constitution which states that:
“Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay.”
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.