S v Porritt and Another (reasons for order dated 23 February 2024) (SS 40/2006) [2024] ZAGPJHC 255 (23 February 2024)

S v Porritt and Another (reasons for order dated 23 February 2024) (SS 40/2006) [2024] ZAGPJHC 255 (23 February 2024)

The court held that the notices of intention to apply for leave to appeal, including their amendments, are null and void and incapable of supporting a stay of execution. Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act and Rule 49 of the Uniform Rules apply only to civil proceedings and do not provide a mechanism for staying execution in criminal matters. The order transferring the accused and the trial venue is interlocutory in nature and does not finally dispose of any issue in the trial; therefore, it is not appealable. The court relied on United Motor Services Limited v Globe Manufacturing Company of Chicago, which established that interlocutory orders affecting venue or transfer do not...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 255
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Gary Patrick Porritt; Respondent: Susan Hilary Bennett
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2024
Case Number
SS 40/2006
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Order; Reasons for Order on Stay of Execution
Outcome
The notices of intention to apply for leave to appeal and their amendments are set aside and declared null and void and incapable of lawfully supporting a stay of execution.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Orders, Leave to Appeal, Stay of Execution, Superior Courts Act, Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Interlocutory Orders Leave to Appeal Stay of Execution Superior Courts Act Criminal Procedure Act

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Gary Patrick Porritt

Respondent

Susan Hilary Bennett

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Interlocutory Order; Reasons for Order on Stay of Execution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notices of intention to apply for leave to appeal against the order of 24 November 2023 are valid and capable of supporting a stay of execution.
  2. 2 Whether section 18 of the Superior Courts Act and Rule 49 of the Uniform Rules apply to criminal proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the order transferring the accused and the trial venue is interlocutory and appealable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the notices of intention to apply for leave to appeal, including their amendments, are null and void and incapable of supporting a stay of execution. Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act and Rule 49 of the Uniform Rules apply only to civil proceedings and do not provide a mechanism for staying execution in criminal matters. The order transferring the accused and the trial venue is interlocutory in nature and does not finally dispose of any issue in the trial; therefore, it is not appealable. The court relied on United Motor Services Limited v Globe Manufacturing Company of Chicago, which established that interlocutory orders affecting venue or transfer do not...

Court Disposition

The notices of intention to apply for leave to appeal and their amendments are set aside and declared null and void and incapable of lawfully supporting a stay of execution.

Orders

  • The Notice of Intention to Apply for Leave to Appeal dated 18 December 2023, the amendment dated 17 January 2024 (served 18 January 2024), and the further handwritten amendment granted on 1 February 2024 are set aside and declared null and void and of no legal force or effect.
  • The notices are declared incapable of lawfully supporting a stay of execution.