South Africa Case Law

Sekoala and Another v S (A326/2017)

Sekoala and Another v S (A326/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 104 (17 February 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A326/2017

Judges

Baloyi-Mere, N Davis

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against 11 rape convictions and increased each appellant’s sentence to 20 years’ direct imprisonment.

• Rape
• Consent
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Sentence Increase On Appeal
• Gender Based Violence
• Criminal-appeal

Kubheka and Another v S (08/36380; A176/18)

Kubheka and Another v S (08/36380; A176/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 194 (20 June 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

08/36380; A176/18

Judges

Vally, Malungana

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction for theft from a motor vehicle and increased both appellants’ sentences.

• Theft From Motor Vehicle
• Sentence Increase On Appeal
• Recidivism
• Firearm Disqualification
• Theft-from-motor-vehicle
• Criminal-appeal

Joubert v S (642/2016)

Joubert v S (642/2016) [2017] ZASCA 3; 2017 (1) SACR 497 (SCA) (3 March 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

642/2016

Judges

Shongwe, Majiedt, Van der Merwe, Mocumie, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the failure of the appellate court to give the appellant prior notice of its intention to increase the sentence constituted a fatal procedural irregularity and infringed the appellant's right to a fair trial. The State's attempt to seek an increase in sentence without obtaining leave to cross-appeal was also irregular. The appellant was materially prejudiced, as he was deprived of the opportunity to prepare adequately, withdraw his appeal, or make pointed submissions on the risk of a sentence increase. The court found that substantial miscarriage of justi…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Sentence Increase On Appeal
• Procedural Irregularity
• Notice Of Intention
• Remittal Guidelines

S v Kellerman (218/96)

S v Kellerman (218/96) [1996] ZASCA 139; ; [1997] 1 All SA 127 (A); (27 November 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

218/96

Judges

C.T. Howie, Hefer, Plewman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 310A of the Criminal Procedure Act did not abolish the established practice whereby, upon notice of appeal and notification by the State of its intention to seek sentence enhancement, the accused could not withdraw the appeal without leave of the appeal court. The appellant's purported withdrawal of his appeal was therefore invalid, and the court a quo was competent to consider and order an increase in sentence. The court further found that the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's abuse of his position as a police officer, and the absence…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Sentence Increase On Appeal
• Fraud
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 310a