Robinson v S (472/12) [2013] ZASCA 77 (30 May 2013)

Robinson v S (472/12) [2013] ZASCA 77 (30 May 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence that the appellant generated or submitted the invoices in question, nor that he made any misrepresentation to the complainant. The invoices were prepared and submitted by another employee after the work was completed by a sub-contractor. The quotations included a clause indicating that only an estimate could be given and that a final bill would be provided upon completion, which was accepted by the complainant. The discrepancy in meterage was discovered only after payment had been approved and did not amount to fraud on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences on the two counts could not stand.

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 77
Parties
Appellant: Trevor Brian Robinson; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2013
Case Number
472/12
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.
Judges
Ponnan, Tshiqi, Erasmus, Plasket, Mbha
Legal Topics
Fraud, Misrepresentation, Criminal Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Fraud Misrepresentation Criminal Appeal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Trevor Brian Robinson

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was correctly convicted on two counts of fraud.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in finding that the appellant made false representations to the complainant.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant submitted the alleged fraudulent invoices to the complainant and demanded payment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that there was no evidence that the appellant generated or submitted the invoices in question, nor that he made any misrepresentation to the complainant. The invoices were prepared and submitted by another employee after the work was completed by a sub-contractor. The quotations included a clause indicating that only an estimate could be given and that a final bill would be provided upon completion, which was accepted by the complainant. The discrepancy in meterage was discovered only after payment had been approved and did not amount to fraud on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences on the two counts could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The appeal of both appellants succeeds and their convictions and sentences imposed pursuant thereto are set aside.'