Moncho v S (CC246/2005) [2016] ZANWHC 47 (4 August 2016)
- Citation
- [2016] ZANWHC 47
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North West High Court, Mafikeng
- Panel
- A A Landman
- Case number
- CC246/2005
More details
- Court
- North West High Court, Mafikeng
- Panel
- A A Landman
- Case number
- CC246/2005
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that although the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was explained, there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the sentence of life imprisonment. Consequently, condonation for the late filing was refused and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Application for condonation and leave to appeal is refused.
Orders
- The application for condonation is refused.
- Leave to appeal against the sentence of life imprisonment is refused.
02
Material facts
Parties
Simon Lentikile Moncho
Applicant Counsel: Adv GonyaneThe State
Respondent Counsel: Adv Zondo03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
- 02
Whether there are reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the sentence of life imprisonment.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant explained the delay in filing for leave to appeal and sought condonation, arguing that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the sentence of life imprisonment.
- Respondent
- The respondent opposed the application, contending that there are no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion and that condonation should not be granted.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Mathebula 2012 (1) SACR 374 (SCA)
Condonation for late filing of an application for leave to appeal may be granted if the delay is explained and there are reasonable prospects of success.
- 02
S v Smith 2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA)
An appeal will only be entertained if there is a reasonable prospect that another court may come to a different conclusion.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that although the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was explained, there were no reasonable prospects that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the sentence of life imprisonment. Consequently, condonation for the late filing was refused and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Application for condonation and leave to appeal is refused.
- The application for condonation is refused.
- Leave to appeal against the sentence of life imprisonment is refused.
Source and reliance status
North West High Court, Mafikeng
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 West High Court, Mafikeng
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL DIVISION, MAHIKENG
CASE NO: CC 246/2005
In the matter between:
SIMON
LENTIKILE MONCHO
APPLICANT
and
THE
STATE
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
ON LEAVE TO APPEAL
Landman J:
[1] Simon Lentikile Moncho applies for leave to appeal to the Full Bench of this Division against the sentence of life imprisonment that I imposed on 12 December 2005.
[2] The application is out of time. The delay has been explained. I would be prepared to grant condonation depending on whether there is merit in the application.
[3] I turn to consider whether there are reasonable prospects that an appeal would be successful. I am of the view that another court would not reasonably come to a different conclusion.
[4] It follows that the application for condonation is refused.
A A Landman
Judge of the High Court
Appearances
Date of hearing:
29 July 2016
Date of Judgment:
4 August 2016
For the Applicant:
Adv Gonyane
For the Respondent: Adv Zondo
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.