S v Sonday and Another (392/95) [1996] ZASCA 13 (18 March 1996)

S v Sonday and Another (392/95) [1996] ZASCA 13 (18 March 1996)

The court found that the appellants wrongfully and intentionally misrepresented material facts to the bank, including the first appellant's insolvency and his impersonation of Abrahams. The evidence established that the bank would not have granted overdraft facilities to an unrehabilitated insolvent, and the appellants must have subjectively foreseen the reasonable possibility of prejudice to the bank. Their conduct was deliberate and calculated to mislead the bank and secure financial facilities that would otherwise have been denied. The court held that intent to prejudice was established and that the convictions were justified. Regarding sentence, the court concluded that while the...

Citation
[1996] ZASCA 13
Parties
Appellant: M C Sonday; Appellant: M A Chafeker; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 1996
Case Number
392/95
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against conviction dismissed; appeals against increased sentence order upheld; original sentences restored.
Judges
Smalberger, Howie, Scott
Legal Topics
Fraud, False Statement Under Oath, Sentencing Discretion, Intent to Prejudice
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Fraud False Statement Under Oath Sentencing Discretion Intent to Prejudice

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M C Sonday

Appellant

M A Chafeker

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were correctly convicted of fraud and making a false statement under oath.
  2. 2 Whether the trial magistrate's sentences were appropriate or should have been increased.
  3. 3 Whether intent to prejudice was established for the crime of fraud.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants wrongfully and intentionally misrepresented material facts to the bank, including the first appellant's insolvency and his impersonation of Abrahams. The evidence established that the bank would not have granted overdraft facilities to an unrehabilitated insolvent, and the appellants must have subjectively foreseen the reasonable possibility of prejudice to the bank. Their conduct was deliberate and calculated to mislead the bank and secure financial facilities that would otherwise have been denied. The court held that intent to prejudice was established and that the convictions were justified. Regarding sentence, the court concluded that while the...

Court Disposition

Appeals against conviction dismissed; appeals against increased sentence order upheld; original sentences restored.

Orders

  • The appeals against conviction are dismissed.
  • The appeals against the order increasing sentences on the fraud count are upheld and the order is set aside.