South Africa Case Law

Mainga v S (53/2019)

Mainga v S (53/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 523; 2020 (1) SACR 666 (GJ) (10 December 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

53/2019

Judges

L R Adams, P Meyer

The High Court found that the Regional Magistrate had intended to impose an effective sentence of forty years direct imprisonment, but an error in the concurrency order resulted in a warrant of detention reflecting forty five years. The court held that the Regional Magistrate was functus officio and could not correct the sentence herself. The High Court, exercising its review powers under section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, set aside the erroneous concurrency order and substituted it with a corrected order to ensure the effective sentence was forty years, as originally intended. The…

Source excerpt

• Concurrent Sentences
• Review Powers
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Effective Sentence
• Functus Officio

S v Guca and Another (420/12)

S v Guca and Another (420/12) [2012] ZASCA 201 (30 November 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

420/12

Judges

Mthiyane, Leach, Tshiqi

The Supreme Court of Appeal substituted harsh, unclear sentences after finding a sentencing misdirection and an error in sentence computation.

• Sentencing
• Minimum Sentences Legislation
• Misdirection
• Effective Sentence
• Arms And Ammunition Act
• Criminal-sentencing

S v Dippenaar (173/06)

S v Dippenaar (173/06) [2006] ZASCA 141; [2006] SCA 169 (RSA) (1 December 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

173/06

Judges

Farlam, Mthiyane, Mlambo

The Supreme Court of Appeal reduced an effective 16-year sentence after finding the trial court undervalued the appellant’s depression, remorse, and personal circumstances.

• Sentencing Principles
• Mitigating Factors
• Remorse
• Concurrent Sentences
• Misdirection
• Effective Sentence