S v Jonas (KS 30/2002) [2004] ZANCHC 65 (30 July 2004)

S v Jonas (KS 30/2002) [2004] ZANCHC 65 (30 July 2004)

The court held that it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain a further application for leave to appeal and for condonation, as the previous application had already been decided and the matter remitted solely for correction of a formal defect in the complainant's evidence. The remittal did not constitute a new trial, and the legal position remained unchanged. Even if the court had jurisdiction, the applications lacked merit because the affidavits presented by the applicant did not meet the requirements of section 316(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The prospective witnesses were either friends or family of the applicant, and their versions were contradicted by the...

Citation
[2004] ZANCHC 65
Parties
Applicant: Erick Jonas; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Case Number
KS 30/2002
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal, Condonation, and Leave to Adduce Further Evidence After Retrial Following Remittal
Outcome
All applications for condonation, leave to appeal, and leave to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
Judges
Majiedt R
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Adducing Further Evidence, Functus Officio, Condonation, Rape, Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Law Leave to Appeal Adducing Further Evidence Functus Officio Condonation Rape Criminal Procedure Act

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Erick Jonas

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal, Condonation, and Leave to Adduce Further Evidence After Retrial Following Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a further application for leave to appeal after a previous partial grant and remittal.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has met the requirements for condonation and for leave to adduce further evidence under section 316(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether there is merit in the applications for condonation, leave to appeal, and leave to adduce further evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain a further application for leave to appeal and for condonation, as the previous application had already been decided and the matter remitted solely for correction of a formal defect in the complainant's evidence. The remittal did not constitute a new trial, and the legal position remained unchanged. Even if the court had jurisdiction, the applications lacked merit because the affidavits presented by the applicant did not meet the requirements of section 316(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The prospective witnesses were either friends or family of the applicant, and their versions were contradicted by the...

Court Disposition

All applications for condonation, leave to appeal, and leave to adduce further evidence are dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's applications for condonation, leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and leave to adduce further evidence are all dismissed.