S v Meje (248/11) [2011] ZASCA 127 (13 September 2011)

S v Meje (248/11) [2011] ZASCA 127 (13 September 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction of a criminal court is determined at the date proceedings commence, not at the date of the offence. At the time the respondents first appeared, the Regional Division of Gauteng had territorial jurisdiction over Kagiso, and thus the court sitting in Pretoria was competent to try the matter. Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act further vests territorial jurisdiction in the absence of objection by the accused. The court below erred in finding that no court had jurisdiction and in its interpretation of section 110. The convictions and sentences must be re-instated, and the matter remitted for the appeal to proceed on the merits.

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 127
Parties
Appellant: The State; Respondent: Arthur Tshepo Meje; Respondent: Edward Mqahayi
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2011
Case Number
248/11
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria) Sitting as a Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside; convictions and sentences re-instated; matter remitted for appeal on the merits.
Judges
Mthiyane, Maya, Shongwe, Seriti, Plasket
Legal Topics
Territorial Jurisdiction, Criminal Procedure Act, Fraud, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Territorial Jurisdiction Criminal Procedure Act Fraud Appeal Procedure

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

Parties

The State

Appellant

Arthur Tshepo Meje

Respondent

Edward Mqahayi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria) Sitting as a Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court had territorial jurisdiction to try the respondents for offences committed in Kagiso after the restructuring of regional divisions.
  2. 2 Whether section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act vests territorial jurisdiction in the absence of objection by the accused.
  3. 3 Whether the convictions and sentences should be re-instated and the appeal heard on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction of a criminal court is determined at the date proceedings commence, not at the date of the offence. At the time the respondents first appeared, the Regional Division of Gauteng had territorial jurisdiction over Kagiso, and thus the court sitting in Pretoria was competent to try the matter. Section 110 of the Criminal Procedure Act further vests territorial jurisdiction in the absence of objection by the accused. The court below erred in finding that no court had jurisdiction and in its interpretation of section 110. The convictions and sentences must be re-instated, and the matter remitted for the appeal to proceed on the merits.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court below set aside; convictions and sentences re-instated; matter remitted for appeal on the merits.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld and the order of the court below is set aside.
  • The respondents’ convictions and sentences are re-instated.