Ubisi and Others v S (A539/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 500 (29 June 2016)

Ubisi and Others v S (A539/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 500 (29 June 2016)

The court found that the appellants were correctly convicted based on unchallenged and credible state witness evidence. The trial magistrate did not err in refusing a further postponement and proceeding without legal representation, as the appellants' conduct constituted an abuse of process. However, the magistrate erred in not ordering the sentences to run concurrently, given that the offences occurred on the same date and place. The effective sentence of 45 years' imprisonment was found to be shockingly inappropriate, and the sentences on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 500
Parties
Appellant: Power Ubisi; Appellant: Given Mabelane; Appellant: Tlapelo Masuku; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 June 2016
Case Number
A539/2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal succeeds in part; convictions upheld, sentences amended to run concurrently.
Judges
A.A. Louw, P. Mngqibisa-Thusi, P.M. Mabuse
Legal Topics
Robbery, Kidnapping, Possession of Firearm, Right to Legal Representation, Concurrent Sentences
Criminal Law Robbery Kidnapping Possession of Firearm Right to Legal Representation Concurrent Sentences

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Power Ubisi

Appellant

Given Mabelane

Appellant

Tlapelo Masuku

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were correctly convicted on charges of robbery, kidnapping, and possession of a firearm.
  2. 2 Whether the trial magistrate erred by refusing a further postponement and proceeding without legal representation for the accused.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences imposed were appropriate and should have been ordered to run concurrently.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants were correctly convicted based on unchallenged and credible state witness evidence. The trial magistrate did not err in refusing a further postponement and proceeding without legal representation, as the appellants' conduct constituted an abuse of process. However, the magistrate erred in not ordering the sentences to run concurrently, given that the offences occurred on the same date and place. The effective sentence of 45 years' imprisonment was found to be shockingly inappropriate, and the sentences on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.

Court Disposition

Appeal succeeds in part; convictions upheld, sentences amended to run concurrently.

Orders

  • The sentences on counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 for all three appellants are to run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.
  • The effective period of imprisonment is reduced from 45 years to a period in the region of 20 years.