Ndaba v S (A120/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 206 (23 August 2018)

Ndaba v S (A120/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 206 (23 August 2018)

The court found that the trial court erred in treating the appellant as a second offender, as the offence under appeal was committed before the previous conviction. Therefore, the prescribed minimum sentence was 15 years, not 20. The court further held that there were no substantial and compelling circumstances warranting a lesser sentence. Regarding the concurrent running of sentences, the court acknowledged the cumulative harshness of consecutive sentences but determined that only part of the sentence should run concurrently to avoid sending the wrong message to society. The appeal against sentence was upheld, the sentence of 15 years imprisonment confirmed, and it was ordered that 10...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 206
Parties
Appellant: Siphiwe Ndaba; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2018
Case Number
A120/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence altered.
Judges
P.E. Molitsoane, J.P. Daffue
Legal Topics
Sentencing Principles, Minimum Sentences, Concurrent Sentences, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Firearms Control
Criminal Law Sentencing Principles Minimum Sentences Concurrent Sentences Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Firearms Control

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siphiwe Ndaba

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding no substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentence.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred by not ordering the sentence to run concurrently with the sentence the appellant is already serving.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the trial court erred in treating the appellant as a second offender, as the offence under appeal was committed before the previous conviction. Therefore, the prescribed minimum sentence was 15 years, not 20. The court further held that there were no substantial and compelling circumstances warranting a lesser sentence. Regarding the concurrent running of sentences, the court acknowledged the cumulative harshness of consecutive sentences but determined that only part of the sentence should run concurrently to avoid sending the wrong message to society. The appeal against sentence was upheld, the sentence of 15 years imprisonment confirmed, and it was ordered that 10...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld; sentence altered.

Orders

  • The appeal against the sentence is upheld and the sentence imposed is altered as follows:
  • The sentence of 15 years imprisonment is confirmed.