R v Nompunza
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Judge | Jennett J and Sampson AJ |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 1957 |
| Citation | 1957 (2) SA 184 (E) |
| Hearing Date | 15 February 1957 |
| Court | Eastern Districts Local Division |
F Jennett, J.:
In this case the appellant was charged with a contravention of sec. 1 (a) of Act 52 of 1951 in that he did enter upon or into without any lawful reason, or remain on or in any land or building without the permission of Douglas Charles Wylde, the owner or lawful occupier or such land or building.
G In the charge it is said that he committed this offence in the district of Stutterheim.
Considerable evidence was led and in the course of that evidence it was established that Stutterheim is an area that has been declared under sec. 11 of the Act in question as an area in respect of which the provisions of the Act apply.
H Now one of the grounds of appeal is that the charge sheet is defective in that there was no allegation in it that the district of Stutterheim is an area defined by the Governor-General as an area to which the Act should apply.
It seems to us that this point is well taken. Sec. 11 of the Act says that 'Save and except the provisions of sec. 9', which does not concern us in this case,
Jennett J
'this Act shall be in force only in such areas as may be defined from time to time by proclamation by the Governor-General in the Gazette, and from such date as may be so proclaimed'.
That makes it quite clear that the Act does not apply save in the areas specially designated by the Governor-General. In that view it seems to me that it is essential that the Crown allege that the area in which the A offence was committed was an area to which the terms of this Act apply.
Mr. Rogers has referred us to the case of R v Kajee, 1949...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mbatha v Additional Magistrate, Mahlabitini
...defective. It is true that the original charge did not contain such allegation and that it ought to have contained it. (R v Nompunza, 1957 (2) SA 184 (E); R v Matsabe. R v Mbalate, 1957 (3) SA 210 (T)). Notwithstanding that B the applicant pleaded guilty to that charge, it is possible that ......
-
S v Mbatha
...It was held that the charge should 1963 (4) SA p477 Milne JP have contained that allegation in view of the decision in R v Nompunza, 1957 (2) SA 184 (E); and R v Matsabe; R v Mbalate, 1957 (3) SA 210 (T). The Court, however, came to the conclusion that whilst the conviction stood, and in th......
-
Ex parte Goshalia
...and (c) all contributions leviable in the future by the trustee and which shall include, inter alia, any premiums for the renewal of the 1957 (2) SA p184 Kennedy trustee's bond of security, the trustee's fees and any fees payable to the Master. I was asked by Mr. Milne, who appears for the ......
-
S v Mbatha
...by proclamation. It was held that the charge should Milne JP have contained that allegation in view of the decision in R v Nompunza, 1957 (2) SA 184 (E); and R v Matsabe; R v Mbalate, 1957 (3) SA 210 (T). The Court, however, came to the conclusion that whilst the conviction stood, and in th......
-
Mbatha v Additional Magistrate, Mahlabitini
...defective. It is true that the original charge did not contain such allegation and that it ought to have contained it. (R v Nompunza, 1957 (2) SA 184 (E); R v Matsabe. R v Mbalate, 1957 (3) SA 210 (T)). Notwithstanding that B the applicant pleaded guilty to that charge, it is possible that ......
-
S v Mbatha
...It was held that the charge should 1963 (4) SA p477 Milne JP have contained that allegation in view of the decision in R v Nompunza, 1957 (2) SA 184 (E); and R v Matsabe; R v Mbalate, 1957 (3) SA 210 (T). The Court, however, came to the conclusion that whilst the conviction stood, and in th......
-
Ex parte Goshalia
...and (c) all contributions leviable in the future by the trustee and which shall include, inter alia, any premiums for the renewal of the 1957 (2) SA p184 Kennedy trustee's bond of security, the trustee's fees and any fees payable to the Master. I was asked by Mr. Milne, who appears for the ......
-
S v Mbatha
...by proclamation. It was held that the charge should Milne JP have contained that allegation in view of the decision in R v Nompunza, 1957 (2) SA 184 (E); and R v Matsabe; R v Mbalate, 1957 (3) SA 210 (T). The Court, however, came to the conclusion that whilst the conviction stood, and in th......