Peerbhai and Another v S (AR 633/11) [2012] ZAKZPHC 58 (17 September 2012)

Peerbhai and Another v S (AR 633/11) [2012] ZAKZPHC 58 (17 September 2012)

The Court held that it was functus officio after having determined the appeal and thus lacked jurisdiction to entertain applications for leave to adduce further evidence or to remit the matter to the trial court. The Criminal Procedure Act only allows such applications in specific circumstances not applicable here. The applicants were not convicted by this Court, so the relevant statutory provisions did not apply. On the merits, the Court found no reasonable prospect or possibility of success on appeal, as the applicants' version was grossly improbable and the contradictions in the complainants' evidence were insignificant. The appeal against sentence was manifestly doomed to failure, and...

Citation
[2012] ZAKZPHC 58
Parties
Applicant: Jameel Peerbhai; Applicant: Sivalingum Murugan; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2012
Case Number
AR 633/11
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Bail After Dismissal of Initial Appeal
Outcome
All applications by the applicants are refused: leave to adduce further evidence, leave to appeal, and bail pending petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Judges
Swain, Henriques
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Adducing Further Evidence, Bail Pending Appeal, Functus Officio, Prospects of Success
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Adducing Further Evidence Bail Pending Appeal Functus Officio Prospects of Success

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jameel Peerbhai

Applicant

Sivalingum Murugan

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Bail After Dismissal of Initial Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal to the Full Bench or Supreme Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether this Court may grant leave to adduce further evidence on appeal or remit the matter to the trial court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants should be granted bail pending petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that it was functus officio after having determined the appeal and thus lacked jurisdiction to entertain applications for leave to adduce further evidence or to remit the matter to the trial court. The Criminal Procedure Act only allows such applications in specific circumstances not applicable here. The applicants were not convicted by this Court, so the relevant statutory provisions did not apply. On the merits, the Court found no reasonable prospect or possibility of success on appeal, as the applicants' version was grossly improbable and the contradictions in the complainants' evidence were insignificant. The appeal against sentence was manifestly doomed to failure, and...

Court Disposition

All applications by the applicants are refused: leave to adduce further evidence, leave to appeal, and bail pending petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Orders

  • The applicants are refused leave to adduce further evidence on appeal.
  • The applicants are refused leave to adduce further evidence before the trial court.