Molekoa v S (A600/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 581 (7 November 2019)

Molekoa v S (A600/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 581 (7 November 2019)

The court found that the Regional Magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 93 ter (1) of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944 by not informing the appellant of his right to have assessors present in his murder trial. This omission constitutes a procedural irregularity that renders both the conviction and sentence invalid. Both parties conceded this point, and the Supreme Court of Appeal precedent in Gayiya v S was followed. Accordingly, the appeal succeeded and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 581
Parties
Appellant: Stevens Molekoa; Respondent: State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2019
Case Number
A600/16
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.
Judges
NE Nkosi, Sardiwalla
Legal Topics
Murder, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Magistrates Court Assessors, Procedural Irregularity
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Murder Unlawful Possession of Firearm Magistrates Court Assessors Procedural Irregularity

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stevens Molekoa

Appellant

State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Regional Magistrate complied with section 93 ter (1) of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944 by informing the accused of the requirement for assessors in a murder trial.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to comply with section 93 ter (1) renders the conviction and sentence invalid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Regional Magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of section 93 ter (1) of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944 by not informing the appellant of his right to have assessors present in his murder trial. This omission constitutes a procedural irregularity that renders both the conviction and sentence invalid. Both parties conceded this point, and the Supreme Court of Appeal precedent in Gayiya v S was followed. Accordingly, the appeal succeeded and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal in respect of the conviction and sentence succeeds.
  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.