S v Jafta (CA&R 490/02) [2003] ZAECHC 18; 2005 (1) SA 108 (E); 2004 (2) SACR 103 (E) (10 April 2003)

S v Jafta (CA&R 490/02) [2003] ZAECHC 18; 2005 (1) SA 108 (E); 2004 (2) SACR 103 (E) (10 April 2003)

The majority held that the Constitutional Court's declaration of invalidity of sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act did not operate retrospectively. The suspension of the declaration meant that those sections remained valid and enforceable until 28 May 2001. Appeals finalized before that date required compliance with the leave to appeal provisions. The High Court lacked jurisdiction to vary the effect of the Constitutional Court's order, and only the court making the declaration could issue orders under section 172(1)(b). Accordingly, the appeals of Jafta, Ndondo, and Mcontana were not properly before the court and were struck from the roll. However, in the case of...

Citation
[2003] ZAECHC 18
Parties
Appellant: A. Jafta; Appellant: M. Ndondo; Appellant: K.M.S. Mcontana; Respondent: The State
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 April 2003
Case Number
CA&R 490/02
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Before the High Court; in Limine Procedural Challenge
Outcome
All three appeals struck from the roll; sentence in Mcontana's case set aside and substituted.
Judges
L.E. Leach, J.D. Pickering, A.R. Erasmus
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Retrospective Invalidity, Constitutional Supremacy, Minimum Sentencing, Judicial Review, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Leave to Appeal Retrospective Invalidity Constitutional Supremacy Minimum Sentencing Judicial Review +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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A. Jafta

Appellant

M. Ndondo

Appellant

K.M.S. Mcontana

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Before the High Court; in Limine Procedural Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the declaration of invalidity of sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act by the Constitutional Court operated retrospectively or prospectively only.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' appeals are properly before the court given their failure to obtain leave to appeal under the invalidated provisions.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to make orders regarding the effect of a Constitutional Court declaration of invalidity under section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the Constitutional Court's declaration of invalidity of sections 309B and 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act did not operate retrospectively. The suspension of the declaration meant that those sections remained valid and enforceable until 28 May 2001. Appeals finalized before that date required compliance with the leave to appeal provisions. The High Court lacked jurisdiction to vary the effect of the Constitutional Court's order, and only the court making the declaration could issue orders under section 172(1)(b). Accordingly, the appeals of Jafta, Ndondo, and Mcontana were not properly before the court and were struck from the roll. However, in the case of...

Court Disposition

All three appeals struck from the roll; sentence in Mcontana's case set aside and substituted.

Orders

  • The appeals of Jafta, Ndondo, and Mcontana are struck from the roll as not properly before the court.
  • The sentence imposed on Mcontana is set aside and substituted with five years' imprisonment, ante-dated to 13 January 2000.