S v Moller (119/88) [1990] ZASCA 62; 1990 (3) SA 876 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 437 (A) (1 June 1990)

S v Moller (119/88) [1990] ZASCA 62; 1990 (3) SA 876 (AD); [1990] 2 All SA 437 (A) (1 June 1990)

The court held that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal record was unsatisfactory and lacked corroboration, but condonation could only be granted if there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that the applicant's explanations regarding the acquisition and possession of the vehicles and engine were implausible and contradicted by his own conduct and prior statements. The applicant failed to discharge the statutory burden under section 37(1) to show reasonable grounds for believing the property was not stolen. The court further found that the lower court erred in upholding the applicant's appeal on count 3,...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 62
Parties
Applicant: Hendrik Jacobus Moller; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 1990
Case Number
119/88
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division; Application for Condonation and Appeal by the Attorney General
Outcome
Application for condonation dismissed; Attorney-General's appeal upheld; all convictions and sentences confirmed.
Judges
E M Grosskopf, Steyn, Eksteen
Legal Topics
Motor Vehicle Theft, Receiving Stolen Property, Burden of Proof, Condonation, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Motor Vehicle Theft Receiving Stolen Property Burden of Proof Condonation Statutory Interpretation

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Jacobus Moller

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division; Application for Condonation and Appeal by the Attorney General

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's application for condonation for late filing of the record should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was correctly convicted on charges of receiving stolen property under section 37(1) of Act 62 of 1955.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant discharged the statutory burden of proof under section 37(1) regarding reasonable grounds for believing the property was not stolen.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal record was unsatisfactory and lacked corroboration, but condonation could only be granted if there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that the applicant's explanations regarding the acquisition and possession of the vehicles and engine were implausible and contradicted by his own conduct and prior statements. The applicant failed to discharge the statutory burden under section 37(1) to show reasonable grounds for believing the property was not stolen. The court further found that the lower court erred in upholding the applicant's appeal on count 3,...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation dismissed; Attorney-General's appeal upheld; all convictions and sentences confirmed.

Orders

  • The applicant's application for condonation of the late filing of the record is dismissed.
  • The Attorney-General's appeal succeeds, and the order of the court a quo is amended to read: The appeal is dismissed, and the convictions and sentences on all counts are confirmed.