S v Sikhosana (265/17, 02/17, 185/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 701 (10 October 2017)

S v Sikhosana (265/17, 02/17, 185/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 701 (10 October 2017)

The conviction of the accused was not in accordance with justice because the sale in execution of the property was erroneously carried out and subsequently reversed by Nedbank. The accused was not liable to the bank, and the civil litigation and criminal charges were based on a mistaken premise. The accused could not be convicted of trespassing on property that was not lawfully transferred, and the proceedings in the regional court were unjust. The High Court exercised its inherent review powers to set aside the conviction in the interest of justice and fairness.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 701
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Jabulani Joseph Sikhosana
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2017
Case Number
265/17
Procedural Posture
Criminal Review / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Conviction set aside; proceedings found not in accordance with justice.
Judges
D S Molefe, N P Mali
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Trespassing, Sale in Execution, Review of Conviction
Criminal Law Land and Property Contempt of Court Trespassing Sale in Execution Review of Conviction

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Jabulani Joseph Sikhosana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Review / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of the accused for contempt of court and trespassing was in accordance with justice given the subsequent reversal of the sale in execution.
  2. 2 Whether the accused could be convicted of trespassing on property that was erroneously sold and should not have been transferred.
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings in the regional court were just and fair in light of new evidence from Nedbank.

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction of the accused was not in accordance with justice because the sale in execution of the property was erroneously carried out and subsequently reversed by Nedbank. The accused was not liable to the bank, and the civil litigation and criminal charges were based on a mistaken premise. The accused could not be convicted of trespassing on property that was not lawfully transferred, and the proceedings in the regional court were unjust. The High Court exercised its inherent review powers to set aside the conviction in the interest of justice and fairness.

Court Disposition

Conviction set aside; proceedings found not in accordance with justice.

Orders

  • The proceedings of the court a quo are not in accordance with justice.
  • The conviction of the accused in the regional court Sebokeng, case SH 185/15, is set aside.