Ntamo v S (AR158/2018) [2018] ZAKZPHC 3 (16 March 2018)

Ntamo v S (AR158/2018) [2018] ZAKZPHC 3 (16 March 2018)

The appeal was confined to the imposition of the non-parole period. The trial court failed to invite submissions from the parties before fixing the non-parole period of 11 years, which constitutes a misdirection. There was no clear indication of exceptional circumstances justifying the non-parole order, and the State conceded the error. The effective sentence of 17 years' imprisonment remains, but the order fixing the non-parole period is set aside. The appellant is entitled to have the non-parole period removed from his sentence.

Citation
[2018] ZAKZPHC 3
Parties
Appellant: Zakhele Christopher Ntamo; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2018
Case Number
AR158/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld to the extent that the non-parole period is set aside; otherwise, appeal against sentence dismissed.
Judges
Mbatha, Chetty, Law
Legal Topics
Non Parole Period, Sentencing Discretion, Criminal Procedure Act, Exceptional Circumstances, Right to Be Heard
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Non Parole Period Sentencing Discretion Criminal Procedure Act Exceptional Circumstances Right to Be Heard

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zakhele Christopher Ntamo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court was correct in imposing a non-parole period under section 276B of the Criminal Procedure Act without inviting submissions from the parties.
  2. 2 Whether exceptional circumstances existed to justify the fixing of a non-parole period.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was confined to the imposition of the non-parole period. The trial court failed to invite submissions from the parties before fixing the non-parole period of 11 years, which constitutes a misdirection. There was no clear indication of exceptional circumstances justifying the non-parole order, and the State conceded the error. The effective sentence of 17 years' imprisonment remains, but the order fixing the non-parole period is set aside. The appellant is entitled to have the non-parole period removed from his sentence.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld to the extent that the non-parole period is set aside; otherwise, appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • The order of the trial court fixing a non-parole period of 11 years is set aside.
  • Save as aforesaid, the appeal against sentence is dismissed.