Tito and Another v S (A320/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 712 (18 August 2023)

Tito and Another v S (A320/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 712 (18 August 2023)

The court found that the appellants were caught in the act of digging up and exposing underground electricity cables, which constitute essential infrastructure. The evidence of the state witnesses was accepted as credible and corroborated. The appellants' version was rejected as improbable and inconsistent. The court held that the knowledge requirement under section 3 of the Criminal Matters Amendment Act was satisfied, as the circumstances indicated that the appellants must have known they were tampering with essential infrastructure. The seriousness of the offence, its impact on public safety and the economy, and the absence of substantial and compelling circumstances justified the...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 712
Parties
Appellant: Tamela Tito; Appellant: Galito Ngwenyama; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2023
Case Number
A320/22
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal on both conviction and sentence is dismissed.
Judges
M P Motha, J S Nyathi
Legal Topics
Essential Infrastructure Offences, Minimum Sentencing, Criminal Matters Amendment Act, Credibility of Witnesses, Appeal on Sentence, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Essential Infrastructure Offences Minimum Sentencing Criminal Matters Amendment Act Credibility of Witnesses Appeal on Sentence Onus of Proof

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tamela Tito

Appellant

Galito Ngwenyama

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants unlawfully and intentionally tampered with, damaged or destroyed essential infrastructure as defined by the Criminal Matters Amendment Act.
  2. 2 Whether the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants knew or ought reasonably to have known that the infrastructure was essential.
  3. 3 Whether there were substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants were caught in the act of digging up and exposing underground electricity cables, which constitute essential infrastructure. The evidence of the state witnesses was accepted as credible and corroborated. The appellants' version was rejected as improbable and inconsistent. The court held that the knowledge requirement under section 3 of the Criminal Matters Amendment Act was satisfied, as the circumstances indicated that the appellants must have known they were tampering with essential infrastructure. The seriousness of the offence, its impact on public safety and the economy, and the absence of substantial and compelling circumstances justified the...

Court Disposition

Appeal on both conviction and sentence is dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal by the appellants against conviction and sentence is dismissed.