S v Abrahams and Another (CA&R 114/03, 51/03) [2005] ZANCHC 63 (4 November 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] ZANCHC 63
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Williams, Tlaletsi
- Case number
- CA&R 114/03, 51/03
More details
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Williams, Tlaletsi
- Case number
- CA&R 114/03, 51/03
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that both appellants were convicted and sentenced prior to 29 May 2001, when sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act were still valid and required leave to appeal for criminal matters. The declaration of invalidity in S v Steyn only took effect from 29 May 2001 and does not apply retrospectively. Since neither appellant applied for leave to appeal in the trial courts nor obtained such leave by petition, their appeals are not properly before the High Court. The court rejected the argument that its inherent review jurisdiction could be used to consider the merits of the appeals in these circumstances. The correct procedure for the appellants is to apply for condonation and leave to appeal in the relevant regional courts. Accordingly, both appeals were struck from the roll.
Court disposition
Both appeals are struck from the roll due to lack of jurisdiction.
Orders
- Both appeals are struck from the roll.
- Appellants are directed to apply for condonation and leave to appeal in the relevant regional courts if so advised.
02
Material facts
Parties
Hendrik Abrahams
Appellant Counsel: VenterGeorge Booysen
Appellant Counsel: Van TonderThe State
Respondent Counsel: OlivierAmounts and remedies
- Sentence Imposed on Hendrik Abrahams (years Imprisonment): 10
- Sentence Imposed on George Booysen (years Imprisonment): 18
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence; Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appeals are properly before the High Court in light of the requirements of sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
- 02
Whether the High Court may consider the merits of the appeals in the absence of leave to appeal granted by the trial courts.
- 03
Whether the Constitutional Court's declaration of invalidity in S v Steyn applies retrospectively to appeals heard before 29 May 2001.
- 04
Whether the High Court's inherent review jurisdiction can be invoked in these circumstances.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Counsel for the appellants argued that the High Court should consider the merits of the appeals by exercising its inherent review jurisdiction, despite the absence of leave to appeal as required by sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act. They submitted that the constitutional invalidity of these sections, as declared in S v Steyn, should allow the appeals to proceed.
- Respondent
- Counsel for the respondent contended that the appeals are not properly before the High Court because the appellants failed to obtain leave to appeal from the trial courts as required by sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act. The respondent argued that the declaration of invalidity in S v Steyn only took effect from 29 May 2001 and does not apply retrospectively. Therefore, the appeals must be struck from the roll.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 require leave to appeal from the trial court or by petition to the High Court for appeals heard before 29 May 2001.
- 02
S v Steyn 2001 (1) SA 1146 (CC)
The declaration of constitutional invalidity of sections 309B and 309C in S v Steyn only took effect from 29 May 2001 and does not apply retrospectively.
- 03
S v Jafta 2004 (2) SACR 103 (ECD); Frans Baka v The State (CA&R 268/2003)
The High Court's inherent review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory requirements for leave to appeal in circumstances where the statute was valid at the time of conviction and sentence.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that both appellants were convicted and sentenced prior to 29 May 2001, when sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act were still valid and required leave to appeal for criminal matters. The declaration of invalidity in S v Steyn only took effect from 29 May 2001 and does not apply retrospectively. Since neither appellant applied for leave to appeal in the trial courts nor obtained such leave by petition, their appeals are not properly before the High Court. The court rejected the argument that its inherent review jurisdiction could be used to consider the merits of the appeals in these circumstances. The correct procedure for the appellants is to apply for condonation and leave to appeal in the relevant regional courts. Accordingly, both appeals were struck from the roll.
Obiter and limits
- The court expressly refrained from making any broader pronouncement on the scope of its inherent review jurisdiction, noting that such comments could affect future cases.
- The judgment clarifies that the proper procedural route for appellants in similar circumstances is to seek condonation and leave to appeal from the trial court.
Court disposition
Both appeals are struck from the roll due to lack of jurisdiction.
- Both appeals are struck from the roll.
- Appellants are directed to apply for condonation and leave to appeal in the relevant regional courts if so advised.
Source and reliance status
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Judgment
VERSLAGWAARDIG JA/NEE
SIRKULEER ONDER REGTERS JA/NEE
SIRKULEER ONDER LANDDROSTE JA/NEE
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(NOORD-KAAPSE AFDELING)
KIMBERLEY
SAAK NO.: CA&R 114/03 & 51/03
DATUM AANGEHOOR: 30-03-2005
DATUM GELEWER:04-11-2005
In die saak van:
HENDRIK
ABRAHAMS APPELLANTE
GEORGE
BOOYSEN
teen
DIE STAAT RESPONDENT
CORAM: WILLIAMS R et TLALETSI R :
UITSPRAAK
WILLIAMS R:
1. Die appellante in beide hierdie sake is skuldig bevind en gevonnis in die streekhof voor 29 Mei 2001.
2. In die saak van Hendrik Abrahams v Die Staat, saaknommer KAP 34/2003, is die appellant op 2 Februarie 2001 in die Streekhof te Upington skuldig bevind op ân aanklag van verkragting en op dieselfde dag gevonnis tot 10 jaar gevangenisstraf.
3. In die saak van George Booysen v Die Staat, saaknommer KAP 33/2003, is die appellant op 27 Maart 2001 in die Streekhof te De Aar skuldig bevind aan moord en op dieselfde datum gevonnis tot 18 jaar gevangenisstraf.
4. Nie een van hierdie appellante, beide van hulle regsverteenwoordig met hul verhore, het ingevolge artikel 309B van die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977 (âDie Wetâ) aansoek gedoen by die verhoorhowe om verlof om te appelleer na hierdie Hof nie. Sodanige verlof tot appél is dus nie deur die verhoorhowe verleen nie en ook nie verleen op petisie deur hierdie Hof nie (art. 309C van die Wet).
5. Die lotgevalle van sodanige appélle het nou duidelik geword. Alhoewel die Konstitusionele Hof in S v Steyn 2001(1) SA 1146(CC) op 29 November 2000 verklaar het dat artikels 309B en C van die Wet ongrondwetlik is, het hierdie declarator eers in werking getree vanaf 29 Mei 2001. Voor hierdie datum was die bepalings van artikels 309 B en C steeds van krag en kan die appellante slegs na hierdie Hof appelleer met verlof verleen ingevolge hierdie twee artikels. Sien die bespreking hiervan in die meerderheidsuitspraak in S v Jafta 2004(2) SACR 103 (ECD) asook die ongerapporteerde uitspraak van hierdie afdeling in die saak van Frans Baka v Die Staat (CA&R 268/2003) waarin die benadering in die Jafta saak gevolg is.
6. By gebrek aan voldoening van die voorskrifte van artikels 309 B of C is die onderhawige appélle dus nie ontvanklik vir appél deur hierdie Hof nie en staan dit dus van die rol geskrap te word.
7. Beide mnr. Venter wat vir appellant Abrahams opgetree het en mnr. Van Tonder wat vir appellant Booysen opgetree het, het gepoog om ons te oorreed om die meriete van hierdie appélle te oorweeg aan die hand van hierdie Hof se inherente hersieningsbevoegdheid. Ons meen egter, sonder om ons enigsins verder uit te spreek hieroor (wat ân moontlike impak mag hê op toekomstige beregting van hierdie sake) dat hierdie argument in die omstandighede van dié twee appelle nie aanvaarbaar is nie.
8. Die korrekte prosedure vir die appellante om te volg is om ân aansoek om kondonasie aan die betrokke Streekhof te rig tesame met ân aansoek om verlof om te appelleer.
9. Bygevolg word die volgende bevel gemaak:
Beide appélle word van die rol geskrap.
_______
C
C WILLIAMS
REGTER
Ek stem saam.
L P TLALETSI
Nms. Appellante: Mnr. Venter, Van Tonder in opdrag van die Regshulpraad
Nms. Respondent: Adv. Olivier
Departement van Openbare Vervolging, Kimberley
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.