S v Mteshane (222/89) [1990] ZASCA 84 (6 September 1990)

S v Mteshane (222/89) [1990] ZASCA 84 (6 September 1990)

The court held that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. His account of losing contact with his attorney was vague and unsupported by evidence, and he did not demonstrate that the circumstances were beyond his control. Furthermore, the court found no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as the appellant's conduct in overtaking multiple vehicles at night on a straight road, resulting in a fatal collision, amounted to gross negligence. The sentence imposed was not so excessive as to warrant interference. Accordingly, the refusal of condonation by the lower court was justified.

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 84
Parties
Appellant: Nelson Mteshane; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 1990
Case Number
222/89
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation for Late Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
J.P.G. Eksteen, E.M. Grosskopf, Steyn
Legal Topics
Condonation, Late Filing of Appeal, Gross Negligence, Manslaughter, Sentence Appeal
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Condonation Late Filing of Appeal Gross Negligence Manslaughter Sentence Appeal

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nelson Mteshane

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation for Late Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant provided sufficient reasons for the late filing of his application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the conviction and sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the refusal of condonation by the lower court was justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. His account of losing contact with his attorney was vague and unsupported by evidence, and he did not demonstrate that the circumstances were beyond his control. Furthermore, the court found no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, as the appellant's conduct in overtaking multiple vehicles at night on a straight road, resulting in a fatal collision, amounted to gross negligence. The sentence imposed was not so excessive as to warrant interference. Accordingly, the refusal of condonation by the lower court was justified.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal against the refusal of condonation is dismissed.