Sefatsa and Others v Attorney-General, Transvaal (304/88) [1988] ZASCA 143; [1989] 4 All SA 336 (AD) (23 November 1988)

Sefatsa and Others v Attorney-General, Transvaal (304/88) [1988] ZASCA 143; [1989] 4 All SA 336 (AD) (23 November 1988)

The court held that neither the trial court nor the appellate court has inherent jurisdiction to reopen a criminal trial or hear further evidence after conviction and sentence have been finalized and all appeals have been dismissed. The jurisdiction of superior courts in criminal matters is strictly governed by statute, specifically the Criminal Procedure Act, which does not provide for the reopening of a trial or the making of a special entry after the appeal process has been exhausted. The remedy of restitutio in integrum is not available in criminal proceedings, even where fraud or perjury is alleged. The application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the application to...

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 143
Parties
Appellant: Mojalefa Reginald Sefatsa; Appellant: Reid Malebo Mokoena; Appellant: Oupa Moses Diniso; Appellant: Theresa Ramashamola; Appellant: Duma Joshua Khumalo; Appellant: Francis Don Mokgesi; Respondent: Attorney-General, Transvaal; Respondent: Minister of Justice
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 November 1988
Case Number
304/88
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Reopen Criminal Trial and Make Special Entry
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Rabie, Corbett, Joubert, Hoexter, Van Heerden
Legal Topics
Functus Officio, Special Entry Procedure, Reopening of Trial, Restitutio in Integrum, Jurisdiction of Superior Courts
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Functus Officio Special Entry Procedure Reopening of Trial Restitutio in Integrum Jurisdiction of Superior Courts

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 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mojalefa Reginald Sefatsa

Appellant

Reid Malebo Mokoena

Appellant

Oupa Moses Diniso

Appellant

Theresa Ramashamola

Appellant

Duma Joshua Khumalo

Appellant

Francis Don Mokgesi

Appellant

Attorney-General, Transvaal

Respondent

Minister of Justice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Dismissal of Application to Reopen Criminal Trial and Make Special Entry

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a superior court have inherent jurisdiction to reopen a criminal trial after conviction and appeal have been finalized?
  2. 2 Can further evidence be heard and a special entry made on the record after an appeal has been dismissed?
  3. 3 Is the remedy of restitutio in integrum available in criminal proceedings where fraud or perjury is alleged?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that neither the trial court nor the appellate court has inherent jurisdiction to reopen a criminal trial or hear further evidence after conviction and sentence have been finalized and all appeals have been dismissed. The jurisdiction of superior courts in criminal matters is strictly governed by statute, specifically the Criminal Procedure Act, which does not provide for the reopening of a trial or the making of a special entry after the appeal process has been exhausted. The remedy of restitutio in integrum is not available in criminal proceedings, even where fraud or perjury is alleged. The application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of the application to...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The dismissal does not preclude the applicants from addressing the State President anew by means of a fresh petition under section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act.