South Africa Case Law

S v Makutoane and Others (01/2020)

S v Makutoane and Others (01/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 166; 2022 (2) SACR 589 (FB) (1 July 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

01/2020

Judges

N. Snellenburg, I. Van Rhyn

The court found that the sentences imposed by the magistrate, ordering fines with alternative imprisonment to run concurrently, were incompetent under section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as concurrency applies only to imprisonment sentences. However, since the accused have already served their sentences, are foreign nationals with unknown addresses, and have likely been deported, it would not serve the interests of justice to set aside the sentences or require their return for resentencing. The court confirmed the convictions and amended the forfeiture order to reflect the correct s…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Concurrency
• Precious Metals Act
• Immigrations Act
• Automatic Review
• Forfeiture Of Property

Lephotho v S (10/2013)

Lephotho v S (10/2013) [2020] ZAFSHC 197 (28 October 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

10/2013

Judge

M. A. Mathebula

The High Court granted condonation and leave to appeal on sentence, limited to whether sentences should have run concurrently with life imprisonment.

• Sentencing Concurrency
• Leave To Appeal
• Parole Eligibility
• Sentencing-concurrency
• Leave-to-appeal
• Parole-eligibility

Ndou v S (247/18)

Ndou v S (247/18) [2019] ZASCA 85; 2019 (2) SACR 243 (SCA) (31 May 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

247/18

Judges

Leach, Saldulker, Zondi, Mocumie, Eksteen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Full Court could not overturn an acquittal without a State cross-appeal. It also reduced sentence and ordered partial concurrency.

• Firearms Control Act
• Common Purpose Liability
• Sentencing Concurrency
• Minimum Sentences
• Appeal Jurisdiction
• Criminal-appeal

S v Swarts (20170042)

S v Swarts (20170042) [2018] ZAECGHC 67 (14 August 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

20170042

Judges

C. Plasket, G. H. Bloem

The court held that the accused was correctly convicted of robbery with aggravating circumstances under count 1 because, although the firearm used was a toy, it was employed to threaten the complainant with grievous bodily harm, satisfying the statutory definition. However, the conviction and sentence under count 2 for pointing the toy firearm constituted a duplication of convictions, as the act was performed in furtherance of the robbery and formed part of a single criminal transaction. The court also found that the J15 form did not accurately reflect the magistrate's intention for the sente…

Source excerpt

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Duplication Of Convictions
• Firearms Control Act
• Sentencing Concurrency

Kotsoane v S (R05/2017)

Kotsoane v S (R05/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 18 (7 February 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R05/2017

Judges

Reinders, Nicholson

The court held that the magistrate was not permitted to order that sentences of fines with alternative imprisonment run concurrently under section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The statute and binding case law make it clear that concurrency is only available for sentences of imprisonment, not for fines with alternative imprisonment. The magistrate's order was therefore impermissible. However, since the accused had already paid the fine and been released, simply deleting the concurrency order would result in unfairness and possible re-arrest. The court set aside the sentences and repla…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Concurrency
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 280
• Alternative Imprisonment
• Review Of Magistrate Decision

S v Jwara (A841/2015)

S v Jwara (A841/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 890 (12 November 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A841/2015

Judges

H.J Fabricius, J.J Strijdom

Special review of a sentence for drug possession confirmed concurrency can be ordered, but only if the alternative imprisonment in the earlier fine-based sentence is actually served.

• Drug Offences
• Sentencing Concurrency
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 280
• Parole Revocation
• Sentencing-concurrency
• Criminal-procedure

S v Sithole (174/2014)

S v Sithole (174/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 211 (6 November 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

174/2014

Judges

E.K. Tsatsi, C.H.G. van der Merwe

On special review, the court set aside a guilty-plea conviction on trespass because the plea statement omitted an essential element, and remitted the matter.

• Trespass Act
• Attempted Theft
• Illegal Foreigner
• Plea Procedure
• Sentencing Concurrency
• Guilty-plea

Madonsela v S (A463/2011)

Madonsela v S (A463/2011) [2012] ZAGPJHC 67; 2012 (2) SACR 456 (GSJ) (19 April 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A463/2011

Judges

FHD Van Oosten, T P Mudau

The High Court set aside a robbery conviction based on recent possession of a stolen vehicle, substituted a section 36 conviction, and reduced sentence.

• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• General Law Amendment Act Section 36
• Competent Verdict
• Sentencing Concurrency
• Recent-possession

S v Eyssen (746/2007)

S v Eyssen (746/2007) [2008] ZASCA 97; [2009] 1 All SA 32 (SCA); 2009 (1) SACR 406 (SCA) (17 September 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

746/2007

Judges

Streicher, Mthiyane, Cloete, Heher, Kgomo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State failed to prove that the Fancy Boys gang constituted an 'enterprise' as defined in the Prevention of Organised Crime Act, or that the offences for which the appellant was convicted formed part of the affairs of such an enterprise. The evidence established only a loose association of individuals, not a structured or ongoing enterprise. The appellant was acquitted on all but three common law charges, and it was not shown that those offences were part of the gang's affairs. The evidence of the accomplice Donough was unreliable and insufficiently co…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Racketeering
• Criminal Gang Activity
• Housebreaking And Robbery
• Accomplice Evidence
• Sentencing Concurrency

S v Skhosana

S v Skhosana [2006] ZAFSHC 48 (23 November 2006)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A28/2004

Judges

H.M. Musi, M.B. Molemela

The court found that the attempted murder convictions were justified because the appellant, identified by the complainants as their former employee, made repeated attempts to shoot Pretorius at close range, and only failed due to a malfunctioning firearm. The intent to kill was clear from the conduct. The attack on Mrs. Pretorius was similarly severe and intended to prevent her from identifying the appellant. The identification evidence was credible and unchallenged, as both complainants knew the appellant well and reacted naturally upon recognizing him. Regarding sentence, the court held tha…

Source excerpt

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Attempted Murder
• Sentencing Concurrency
• Identity Of Accused