Yawa v S (CA R 134/2022) [2024] ZAECMKHC 18 (14 February 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAECMKHC 18
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
- Panel
- N Gqamana, A Govindjee
- Case number
- CA R 134/2022
More details
- Court
- Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
- Panel
- N Gqamana, A Govindjee
- Case number
- CA R 134/2022
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the absence of the appellant's evidence and the judgment of the trial court rendered the record so defective that a proper and fair consideration of the appeal was impossible. This defect fundamentally compromised the appellant's constitutional right to a fair trial and appeal. The only appropriate remedy in such circumstances is to set aside the conviction and sentence in their entirety and order the immediate release of the appellant.
Court disposition
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant to be released immediately.
Orders
- The appeal is upheld.
- The conviction and resultant sentences of the court a quo are set aside.
- The appellant must be released from prison immediately.
- The Registrar is directed to deliver this judgment to the Head Kirkwood Prison.
02
Material facts
Parties
Thembile Yawa
Appellant Counsel: M T SolaniThe State
Respondent Counsel: H Obermeyer03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the absence of a complete trial record renders the appeal incapable of fair determination.
- 02
Whether the appellant's constitutional right to a fair trial and appeal has been compromised.
- 03
What is the appropriate remedy when the record is inadequate for proper consideration of the appeal.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant contended that the incomplete record, specifically the absence of his evidence and the judgment of the trial court, made it impossible to properly prosecute the appeal. He argued that this defect compromised his constitutional right to a fair trial and appeal, and that the only just remedy was to set aside the conviction and sentence.
- Respondent
- The respondent acknowledged the efforts made to reconstruct the record but maintained that the delay and missing portions rendered reconstruction impossible. The respondent did not oppose the setting aside of the conviction and sentence in light of the inability to fairly determine the appeal.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Chabedi 2005 (1) SACR 415 (SCA)
The record must be adequate for proper consideration of the appeal; serious defects may preclude fair adjudication.
- 02
S v Schombee and Another 2017 (2) SACR (!) CC
An accused's right to a fair trial includes the right to appeal, and an adequate record is essential. Where the record is inadequate, conviction and sentence must be set aside.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the absence of the appellant's evidence and the judgment of the trial court rendered the record so defective that a proper and fair consideration of the appeal was impossible. This defect fundamentally compromised the appellant's constitutional right to a fair trial and appeal. The only appropriate remedy in such circumstances is to set aside the conviction and sentence in their entirety and order the immediate release of the appellant.
Obiter and limits
- The importance of a proper record of trial proceedings is integral to the administration of justice and the protection of constitutional rights.
- Delays in reconstructing the record can exacerbate the inability to fairly determine appeals and undermine the justice system.
Court disposition
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant to be released immediately.
- The appeal is upheld.
- The conviction and resultant sentences of the court a quo are set aside.
- The appellant must be released from prison immediately.
- The Registrar is directed to deliver this judgment to the Head Kirkwood Prison.
Source and reliance status
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Judgment
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, MAKHANDA)
CASE NO.: CA R 134/2022
In the matter between:
THEMBILE
YAWA Appellant and
THE
STATE Respondent
APPEAL JUDGMENT
GQAMANA J
[1] The appellant was arraigned in the Regional Court sitting at Kirkwood for murder, assault GBH and attempted murder. He was sentenced to 15 years’ on count 1, 6 years’ imprisonment on count 2, and 12 months’ imprisonment on count 3. The sentence on count 2 and 3 was ordered to run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.
[2] The appeal is against both the conviction and sentence. However, the challenge that the appellant encountered is the incomplete record of the trial proceedings. The record forms the foundation of the appeal process and without the complete record the administration of justice suffers.
[3] In this appeal the appellant’s entire evidence and the judgment of the court a quo is missing, despite all the efforts by the parties and the presiding magistrate to reconstruct the record. The magistrate ascribes the challenge of reconstruction of the record to the delay between the time of the conclusion of the trial and the period that he was approached for reconstruction.
[4] The question now for determination is whether, the absence of the missing record has the effect that the appeal could not be fairly determined.
[5] An accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial, which includes the right of appeal to a higher court is sancrosanct.
[6] In the absence of the transcript or any reconstruction of the missing portion of the record and the judgment of the court a quo, we as the appeal court, are unable to know what facts the magistrate found as proven. Without the appellant’s evidence and the judgment, we would not be able to do justice to the appeal.
[7] In S v Chabedi[1] at paras 5-6, the SCA said:
“The requirement is that the record must be adequate for proper consideration of the appeal.
The question whether the defects in a record are so serious that a proper consideration of the appeal is not possible, cannot be answered in abstract. It depends, inter alia, on the nature of the defects in the particular record and on the nature of issues to be decided on appeal.”
[8] As mentioned in paragraph 2 above, the appellant challenge both the conviction and the sentence. Without his evidence and the judgment, it is impossible to consider the issues raised in this appeal. The nature of the defects in the record are so serious that a proper consideration of the appeal is not possible.
[9] The importance of the proper record of trial proceedings and its connection of the right to a fair trial was authoritatively confirmed in S v Schombee and Another[2] and the Constitutional Court said:
“[19] It is long established in our criminal jurisprudence that an accused’ right to a fair trial encompasses the right to appeal. An adequate record of trial court proceedings is a key component of this right. When a record is inadequate for a proper consideration of an appeal, it will, as a rule, lead to conviction and sentence being set aside.”
[10] In the light of all the above reasons, we are unable to consider the appeal and as such the appellant’s rights to a fair appeal has been so compromised. That being the case the proper remedy is to set aside the trial proceedings in their entirety.
[11] In the result the following order is made:
1. The appeal is upheld.
2. The conviction and the resultant sentences of the court a quo are set aside.
3. The appellant must be released from prison immediately
4. The Registrar of this court is directed immediately to take steps to ensure that this judgement is delivered to the Head Kirkwood Prison.
N
GQAMANA
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
I agree:
A
GOVINDJEE
APPEARANCES: Counsel for Appellant Mr M T Solani Instructed by Legal Aid Makhanda Counsel for Respondent Adv H Obermeyer Instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions Gqeberha Heard on 14 February 2024 Judgment Delivered on 14 February 2024
[1] 2005 (1) SACR 415 (SCA).
[2] 2017 (2) SACR (!) CC.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.