S v Jantjies and Another (158/92) [1993] ZASCA 100 (26 August 1993)

S v Jantjies and Another (158/92) [1993] ZASCA 100 (26 August 1993)

The application for condonation was refused because the appellants failed to provide sufficient information or supporting affidavits to explain their delay and non-compliance with the rules. The court found that the forensic analyst's affidavit met the statutory requirements and provided prima facie proof that the tablets seized from the appellants contained methaqualone. The appellants did not present any evidence to rebut this prima facie case, nor did they apply to have the analyst called as a witness. The court distinguished S v Van der Westhuizen, holding that it was wrongly decided and that the chain of custody was adequately established in this case. There was no reasonable...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 100
Parties
Appellant: Ebrahim Jantjies; Appellant: Belinda Johnson; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 August 1993
Case Number
158/92
Procedural Posture
Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal Record After Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Application for condonation refused; appeal cannot proceed.
Judges
JPG Eksteen, Joubert, Harms
Legal Topics
Condonation, Prima Facie Evidence, Drug Offences, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Condonation Prima Facie Evidence Drug Offences Statutory Interpretation

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ebrahim Jantjies

Appellant

Belinda Johnson

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Condonation Application / Application for Condonation for Late Filing of Appeal Record After Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' application for condonation for non-compliance with the rules of the court should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the State established prima facie proof that the seized tablets contained methaqualone as required by statute.
  3. 3 Whether the forensic analyst's affidavit satisfied the requirements of section 212 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for condonation was refused because the appellants failed to provide sufficient information or supporting affidavits to explain their delay and non-compliance with the rules. The court found that the forensic analyst's affidavit met the statutory requirements and provided prima facie proof that the tablets seized from the appellants contained methaqualone. The appellants did not present any evidence to rebut this prima facie case, nor did they apply to have the analyst called as a witness. The court distinguished S v Van der Westhuizen, holding that it was wrongly decided and that the chain of custody was adequately established in this case. There was no reasonable...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation refused; appeal cannot proceed.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for non-compliance with the rules of the Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed.