S v K T (255/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 470 (15 November 2013)

S v K T (255/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 470 (15 November 2013)

The accused was charged and convicted under the Corruption Act 94 of 1992, which had been repealed by the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004. The charge and conviction under the repealed Act are invalid, as sentencing cannot occur under a statute no longer in force. The conviction must be set aside, and the accused may be charged afresh under the current legislation. The retrial should be conducted before a different magistrate to ensure impartiality and compliance with proper procedure.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 470
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Aseitsiwe Johannes Legong
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2013
Case Number
A935/12
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Review / Special Review
Outcome
Conviction set aside; accused may be re-charged under the current Act and retried before a different magistrate.
Judges
Ismail, Jordaan E
Legal Topics
Corruption Act Repeal, Incorrect Charge, Conviction Under Repealed Statute, Criminal Procedure Review
Criminal Law Corruption Act Repeal Incorrect Charge Conviction Under Repealed Statute Criminal Procedure Review

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Aseitsiwe Johannes Legong

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Review / Special Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was correctly charged and convicted under a repealed statute.
  2. 2 Whether a conviction under the repealed Corruption Act 94 of 1992 can stand.
  3. 3 Whether the accused can be sentenced under a repealed Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The accused was charged and convicted under the Corruption Act 94 of 1992, which had been repealed by the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act 12 of 2004. The charge and conviction under the repealed Act are invalid, as sentencing cannot occur under a statute no longer in force. The conviction must be set aside, and the accused may be charged afresh under the current legislation. The retrial should be conducted before a different magistrate to ensure impartiality and compliance with proper procedure.

Court Disposition

Conviction set aside; accused may be re-charged under the current Act and retried before a different magistrate.

Orders

  • The conviction is set aside.
  • The accused may be charged de novo in terms of the current Act.