S v Segoe and Others (A144/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 104 (5 March 2015)

S v Segoe and Others (A144/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 104 (5 March 2015)

The court found that Mr Bungani, who represented accused 3 on 19 and 20 June 2014, was suspended from the roll of attorneys and therefore lacked the right of appearance. As a result, accused 3 was not properly represented during those proceedings. The court held that this constituted an irregularity and that the proceedings on those dates were not in accordance with justice. However, given the advanced stage of the trial and the interests of justice, only the proceedings of 19 and 20 June 2014 were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for finalisation.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 104
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Percy Segoe; Respondent: Sebeko Mazibuko; Respondent: Sabelo Athur Nkosi; Respondent: Emmanuel Buthelezi
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2015
Case Number
A144/15
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Review / Special Review of Trial Proceedings
Outcome
The proceedings of 19 and 20 June 2014 are reviewed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court for finalisation.
Judges
M J Teffo, C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Right of Legal Representation, Irregular Proceedings, Attorneys Act, Review of Lower Court, Inherent Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Right of Legal Representation Irregular Proceedings Attorneys Act Review of Lower Court Inherent Jurisdiction

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Percy Segoe

Respondent

Sebeko Mazibuko

Respondent

Sabelo Athur Nkosi

Respondent

Emmanuel Buthelezi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Review / Special Review of Trial Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings before the trial court on 19 and 20 June 2014 were lawful given that accused 3's representative was suspended from practice.
  2. 2 Whether the accused was properly represented during those proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the irregularity warrants setting aside the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Bungani, who represented accused 3 on 19 and 20 June 2014, was suspended from the roll of attorneys and therefore lacked the right of appearance. As a result, accused 3 was not properly represented during those proceedings. The court held that this constituted an irregularity and that the proceedings on those dates were not in accordance with justice. However, given the advanced stage of the trial and the interests of justice, only the proceedings of 19 and 20 June 2014 were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the trial court for finalisation.

Court Disposition

The proceedings of 19 and 20 June 2014 are reviewed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial court for finalisation.

Orders

  • The proceedings of 19 and 20 June 2014 before the trial court are set aside.
  • The matter is remitted to the trial court for finalisation.