Senkhane v S (300/10) [2011] ZASCA 94; 2011 (2) SACR 493 (SCA); [2011] 4 All SA 257 (SCA) (31 May 2011)

Senkhane v S (300/10) [2011] ZASCA 94; 2011 (2) SACR 493 (SCA); [2011] 4 All SA 257 (SCA) (31 May 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the established practice of allowing an automatic right of appeal against the refusal of condonation by a high court sitting as a court of appeal is undesirable and should be replaced. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to require that leave to appeal be sought from the high court before approaching the Supreme Court of Appeal in such matters. The appellant's application for condonation was correctly refused by the high court, as there were no reasonable prospects of success on the merits of the appeal against conviction and sentence. The evidence demonstrated that the appellant corruptly received money with the intention specified in the...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 94
Parties
Appellant: Valentine Senkhane; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2011
Case Number
300/10
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation for Late Prosecution of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll; sentence imposed by the regional magistrate remains effective.
Judges
Navsa, Snyders, Bosielo, Shongwe, Seriti
Legal Topics
Condonation, Leave to Appeal, Corruption Act, Fraud, Prospects of Success, Appeal Procedure
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Condonation Leave to Appeal Corruption Act Fraud Prospects of Success Appeal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Valentine Senkhane

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Condonation for Late Prosecution of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to an automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the refusal of condonation by the high court sitting as a court of appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of condonation by the high court was correct in light of the merits of the underlying conviction and sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the established practice of automatic right of appeal against refusal of condonation should be continued or replaced by a requirement for leave to appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the established practice of allowing an automatic right of appeal against the refusal of condonation by a high court sitting as a court of appeal is undesirable and should be replaced. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to require that leave to appeal be sought from the high court before approaching the Supreme Court of Appeal in such matters. The appellant's application for condonation was correctly refused by the high court, as there were no reasonable prospects of success on the merits of the appeal against conviction and sentence. The evidence demonstrated that the appellant corruptly received money with the intention specified in the...

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll; sentence imposed by the regional magistrate remains effective.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll.
  • The sentence imposed by the regional magistrate remains effective.