S v Mokhesi and Others (45/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 183; 2025 (2) SACR 182 (FB) (13 June 2025)

S v Mokhesi and Others (45/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 183; 2025 (2) SACR 182 (FB) (13 June 2025)

The court held that none of the six questions advanced by the State constituted valid questions of law as required by section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Most were factual in nature or disguised as questions of law. The extradition request for accused 17 was invalid as it was not made by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, in line with the Schultz precedent. The State was aware of the Schultz decision prior to the extradition and did not act to correct the request. Furthermore, the State's application was not competent as there was no acquittal, only a finding of lack of jurisdiction. The application to reserve questions of law for consideration by the Supreme Court...

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 183
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Nthimotse Mokhesi; Respondent: Mahlomola John Matlakala; Respondent: Pheagane Edwin Sodi; Respondent: Blackhead Consulting (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Diamond Hill Trading 71 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: 605 Consulting Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sello Joseph Radebe; Respondent: Mastertrade 232 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Abel Kgotso Manyeki; Respondent: ORI Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Thabane Wiseman Zulu; Respondent: Sarah Matawana Mlamleli; Respondent: Elias Sekgobela Magashule; Respondent: Nozipho Belina Molikoe; Respondent: Thabiso Makepe; Respondent: Albertus Venter; Respondent: Nomalanga Moroadi Selina Cholota
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2025
Case Number
45/2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Application / Application to Reserve Questions of Law Under S 319 CPA
Outcome
Application to reserve questions of law for consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Loubser
Legal Topics
Extradition, Jurisdiction, Reservation of Questions of Law, Special Plea, Authority of Precedent
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Extradition Jurisdiction Reservation of Questions of Law Special Plea Authority of Precedent

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Nthimotse Mokhesi

Respondent

Mahlomola John Matlakala

Respondent

Pheagane Edwin Sodi

Respondent

Blackhead Consulting (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Diamond Hill Trading 71 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

605 Consulting Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sello Joseph Radebe

Respondent

Mastertrade 232 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Abel Kgotso Manyeki

Respondent

ORI Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Thabane Wiseman Zulu

Respondent

Sarah Matawana Mlamleli

Respondent

Elias Sekgobela Magashule

Respondent

Nozipho Belina Molikoe

Respondent

Thabiso Makepe

Respondent

Albertus Venter

Respondent

Nomalanga Moroadi Selina Cholota

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Application / Application to Reserve Questions of Law Under S 319 CPA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State's application raises valid questions of law under section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the extradition request for accused 17 was lawfully made by the appropriate executive authority.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court's findings on jurisdiction and the effect of precedent were questions of law or fact.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that none of the six questions advanced by the State constituted valid questions of law as required by section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Most were factual in nature or disguised as questions of law. The extradition request for accused 17 was invalid as it was not made by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, in line with the Schultz precedent. The State was aware of the Schultz decision prior to the extradition and did not act to correct the request. Furthermore, the State's application was not competent as there was no acquittal, only a finding of lack of jurisdiction. The application to reserve questions of law for consideration by the Supreme Court...

Court Disposition

Application to reserve questions of law for consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application to reserve questions of law for consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed.