Schoombee and Another v S (CC83/06) [2011] ZANWHC 102 (4 August 2011)

Schoombee and Another v S (CC83/06) [2011] ZANWHC 102 (4 August 2011)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable, detailed, and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing their notice of application for leave to appeal. The reasons advanced were vague, contradictory, and did not establish good cause for condonation. Regarding the merits, the First Applicant pleaded guilty to murder and admitted all elements of the offence, and the Second Applicant was found to have acted in concert with the First Applicant under the doctrine of common purpose. The evidence against the Second Applicant on count 2, although from a single witness, was found to be clear and satisfactory in every material respect, and the discrepancies raised were...

Citation
[2011] ZANWHC 102
Parties
Applicant: Phillip Daniel Schoombee; Applicant: Frikkie Massyn; Respondent: The State
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2011
Case Number
CC83/06
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Applications for condonation and leave to appeal by both applicants are dismissed.
Judges
R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Condonation for Late Filing, Common Purpose Liability, Minimum Sentencing, Single Witness Evidence, Prospects of Success on Appeal
Criminal Law Condonation for Late Filing Common Purpose Liability Minimum Sentencing Single Witness Evidence Prospects of Success on 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Daniel Schoombee

Applicant

Frikkie Massyn

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the notice of application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal against conviction and sentence for murder and assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of a single witness was sufficient for conviction on count 2.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable, detailed, and satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing their notice of application for leave to appeal. The reasons advanced were vague, contradictory, and did not establish good cause for condonation. Regarding the merits, the First Applicant pleaded guilty to murder and admitted all elements of the offence, and the Second Applicant was found to have acted in concert with the First Applicant under the doctrine of common purpose. The evidence against the Second Applicant on count 2, although from a single witness, was found to be clear and satisfactory in every material respect, and the discrepancies raised were...

Court Disposition

Applications for condonation and leave to appeal by both applicants are dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for condonation for the late filing of the notice of application for leave to appeal by both applicants is dismissed.
  • Leave to appeal by the First Applicant against the sentence of life imprisonment on the murder charge (count 1) is refused.