R v Latib

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Steyn JA, Beyers JA, Malan JA, van Blerk JA and Olgilvie Thompson JA
• Judgment Date: 27 November 1958
• Hearing Date: 17 November 1958
• Court: Appellate Division

Steyn, J.A.:

In the magistrate's G court the appellant, together with others, was tried upon 108 counts of fraud on the following charge:

'In that upon or about the dates or during the periods set out in column 2 of the attached schedule, and at Johannesburg in the district of Johannesburg the said accused did wrongfully, unlawfully, falsely and with intent to defraud give out and pretend, or cause to be given out and pretended, to the persons or firms set out in column 4 of the attached schedule, that the corporate bodies or concerns set out in column 6 of the said schedule were able and willing to pay for goods H which the said accused there and then purported to order on behalf of the said corporate bodies or concerns from the said persons or firms, and did by means of the said false pretences induce the said persons or firms, to their loss and prejudice, to supply to the said corporate bodies or concerns goods to the value of the amounts set out in column 5 of the said schedule, whereas in truth and in fact, the said accused, when they so gave out and pretended, or caused to be given out and pretended, well knew that the said corporate bodies or concerns were not able and willing so to pay.'

The appellant was convicted on 75 of these counts, the other accused being acquitted, and was sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment with compulsory labour on each count. His appeal to the Transvaal Provincial

Steyn JA

Division against the convictions and sentence was unsuccessful, but he obtained leave from that Division to appeal to this Court.

The magistrate dealt fully and ably with the evidence and Mr. Dison, for the appellant, does not challenge the factual findings at which he A arrived, but contends that the facts found do not establish the case brought against the appellant in terms of the charge.

Before dealing with the submissions made in this regard, it is necessary to refer very briefly to the facts. The appellant is an unrehabilitated insolvent whose trustees refused him permission to trade. On 17th June, B 1952, he caused two companies to be registered, namely Bital Holdings SA (Pty.) Ltd. and Twentieth Century Mail Order (Pty.) Ltd. He controlled both the companies and devised a scheme whereby goods purchased by the latter company would, on delivery at its premises, be conveyed to the premises of the firstmentioned company, to be sold for the benefit of that company and of the appellant himself, without C accounting to the purchasing company. In November, 1952, at about the time when the operations of the Twentieth Century Mail Order company had to be discontinued as a result of demands by creditors and the severance by one of his co-accused of his association with the company, the appellant embarked upon another business under the name of A. de Vries D (Pty.) Ltd., which simply took the place of the Twentieth Century Mail Order company in the fraudulent scheme in which...