S v Khoza en Andere (61/89) [1990] ZASCA 142; 1991 (1) SA 793 (AD); [1991] 3 All SA 971 (AD) (26 November 1990)

S v Khoza en Andere (61/89) [1990] ZASCA 142; 1991 (1) SA 793 (AD); [1991] 3 All SA 971 (AD) (26 November 1990)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the requirements of section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act were not properly complied with, as the trial judge failed to clearly formulate the legal question and set out the relevant facts. The court found that neither the State nor the respondents were entitled to request reservation of a legal question in the absence of a conviction or acquittal. The striking of the case from the roll did not amount to an acquittal, and therefore the State could not insist on reservation of a legal question. The court further held that the trial judge's discretion to prohibit piecemeal prosecution must be exercised in accordance with established legal...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 142
Parties
Applicant: Die Staat; Respondent: Percy Khoza; Respondent: Charles Ndluli; Respondent: Sam Ambi Ngobeni; Respondent: Daniel Mongwe
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 1990
Case Number
61/89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Decision; Referral of Legal Question Under Section 319(1) of Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Appeal postponed sine die and matter remitted to the trial judge for proper formulation of the legal question under section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Judges
Hoexter, Van Heerden, Smalberger, Nienaber, Preiss
Legal Topics
Autrefois Convict, Section 319 Criminal Procedure Act, Judicial Discretion, Abuse of Process
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Autrefois Convict Section 319 Criminal Procedure Act Judicial Discretion Abuse of Process

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Die Staat

Applicant

Percy Khoza

Respondent

Charles Ndluli

Respondent

Sam Ambi Ngobeni

Respondent

Daniel Mongwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Decision; Referral of Legal Question Under Section 319(1) of Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in dismissing the plea of autrefois convict.
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge had discretion to prohibit piecemeal prosecution in criminal proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act were properly complied with in reserving a legal question.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the requirements of section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act were not properly complied with, as the trial judge failed to clearly formulate the legal question and set out the relevant facts. The court found that neither the State nor the respondents were entitled to request reservation of a legal question in the absence of a conviction or acquittal. The striking of the case from the roll did not amount to an acquittal, and therefore the State could not insist on reservation of a legal question. The court further held that the trial judge's discretion to prohibit piecemeal prosecution must be exercised in accordance with established legal...

Court Disposition

Appeal postponed sine die and matter remitted to the trial judge for proper formulation of the legal question under section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Orders

  • The appeal is postponed sine die.
  • The matter is remitted to the trial judge for proper compliance with section 319(1) of Act 51 of 1977 regarding the formulation and submission of the legal question(s) to the appellate court.