Soomar v Kroon and Others (1584/06, ECJ138) [2006] ZAECHC 38 (17 August 2006)

Soomar v Kroon and Others (1584/06, ECJ138) [2006] ZAECHC 38 (17 August 2006)

The application was dismissed on the basis that it was brought after an unreasonable delay of 7.5 years, with insufficient explanation for the delay. The applicant failed to utilize the correct procedure and forum, as established by statutory and case law. The absence of the criminal record did not justify the use of review proceedings, and the applicant should have pursued established appeal procedures, such as applying for leave to appeal or a special entry under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The High Court, sitting as a local division, lacked jurisdiction to review the decision of another local division. Furthermore, a judge of the High Court cannot be taken on review by...

Citation
[2006] ZAECHC 38
Parties
Applicant: Rashaad Soomar; Respondent: Mr Justice Kroon; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Mr Alwyn Griebenow
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 August 2006
Case Number
1584/06
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Dambuza
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Unreasonable Delay, Jurisdiction of High Court, Special Entry Criminal Procedure Act, Loss of Record
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Judicial Review Unreasonable Delay Jurisdiction of High Court Special Entry Criminal Procedure Act Loss of Record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rashaad Soomar

Applicant

Mr Justice Kroon

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Mr Alwyn Griebenow

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's review application was brought within a reasonable time.
  2. 2 Whether the correct procedure and forum were utilized for challenging the conviction and sentence.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of the criminal record justifies the use of review proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed on the basis that it was brought after an unreasonable delay of 7.5 years, with insufficient explanation for the delay. The applicant failed to utilize the correct procedure and forum, as established by statutory and case law. The absence of the criminal record did not justify the use of review proceedings, and the applicant should have pursued established appeal procedures, such as applying for leave to appeal or a special entry under Section 317 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The High Court, sitting as a local division, lacked jurisdiction to review the decision of another local division. Furthermore, a judge of the High Court cannot be taken on review by...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.