Ramabele v S; Msimango v S (CCT 232/17; CCT 207/18) [2020] ZACC 22; 2020 (11) BCLR 1312 (CC) ; 2020 (2) SACR 604 (CC) (16 September 2020)

Ramabele v S; Msimango v S (CCT 232/17; CCT 207/18) [2020] ZACC 22; 2020 (11) BCLR 1312 (CC) ; 2020 (2) SACR 604 (CC) (16 September 2020)

The Constitutional Court found that the applicants were afforded ample opportunity to secure legal representation and that the trial court acted reasonably in refusing further postponements. The applicants' repeated requests for postponement, without concrete steps to secure counsel, amounted to unreasonable delay and were detrimental to the interests of justice and their co-accused. The trial judge explained the relevant rights and procedures, including section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act, and ensured the applicants understood the consequences of their actions. The judge's frustration did not amount to bias, and the procedural requirements of section 342A were met. The delays were...

Citation
[2020] ZACC 22
Parties
Applicant: Tshidiso Ramabele; Applicant: McDonald Msimango; Applicant: Sibusiso Msimango; Applicant: Meshack Sithole; Applicant: Mzala Sithole; Applicant: Charles Sithole; Applicant: Rise Msimango; Applicant: Christiaan Lunga; Applicant: Clement Nkhi; Respondent: The State; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 September 2020
Case Number
CCT 232/17; CCT 207/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Condonation and leave to appeal granted, but substantive relief refused.
Judges
Mogoeng, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Tshiqi, Victor
Legal Topics
Fair Trial Rights, Judicial Bias, Unreasonable Delay, Legal Representation, Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act, Leave to Appeal
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Fair Trial Rights Judicial Bias Unreasonable Delay Legal Representation Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act +1 more

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshidiso Ramabele

Applicant

McDonald Msimango

Applicant

Sibusiso Msimango

Applicant

Meshack Sithole

Applicant

Mzala Sithole

Applicant

Charles Sithole

Applicant

Rise Msimango

Applicant

Christiaan Lunga

Applicant

Clement Nkhi

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' right to a fair trial under section 35 of the Constitution was infringed by refusal of further postponement for legal representation of choice.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge was biased against the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the implementation of section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act was procedurally and substantively fair.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court found that the applicants were afforded ample opportunity to secure legal representation and that the trial court acted reasonably in refusing further postponements. The applicants' repeated requests for postponement, without concrete steps to secure counsel, amounted to unreasonable delay and were detrimental to the interests of justice and their co-accused. The trial judge explained the relevant rights and procedures, including section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act, and ensured the applicants understood the consequences of their actions. The judge's frustration did not amount to bias, and the procedural requirements of section 342A were met. The delays were...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Condonation and leave to appeal granted, but substantive relief refused.

Orders

  • Condonation is granted.
  • Leave to appeal is granted.