Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Yawa v S (CA R 134/2022) [2024] ZAECMKHC 18 (14 February 2024)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

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 Solani

The State

Respondent Counsel: H Obermeyer

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

Source document

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Judgment

[2024] ZAECMKHC 18

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.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

S v Chabedi 2005 (1) SACR 415 (SCA)

Case cited

S v Schombee and Another 2017 (2) SACR (!) CC

Case cited

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.