Rex v Leguabe
| Judge | Malan J and Pittman AJ |
| Judgment Date | 14 October 1949 |
| Citation | 1949 (4) SA 871 (T) |
| Hearing Date | 14 October 1949 |
| Court | Transvaal Provincial Division |
Malan, J.:
It is not necessary to hear Mr. Moodie.
This is an argument on review, and the Court is indebted to Mr. Preiss for his assistance in the matter.
Malan J
The accused was charged with a contravention of sec. 33 (2) of Ord. 17 of 1931 in that he drove a motor vehicle without the knowledge or consent of the owner or person in lawful charge thereof. The relevant section reads as follows:
'Any person who without the knowledge or consent of the owner or person in lawful charge of any motor vehicle rides in or drives the same,'
shall be guilty of an offence and liable to certain punishment.
On...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
6 practice notes
-
Die Staat v Le Grange
.... . .'. Die Hof a quo het die vraag ontkennend beantwoord. Daarmee het die Hof afgewyk van die vroeëre uitsprake in R v Leguabe, 1949 (4) SA 871 (T), en R v Roux, 1946 E.D.L. 248, en die sienswyse gevolg wat in R v Kuyler, 1960 (3) SA 834 (O), uitgespreek is. In die sake van Roux en Kuyler ......
-
R v Kuyler
...gevolgtrekking waartoe hierbo geraak is, strydig is met die beslissings in die sake van Rex v Roux, 1946 E.D.L. 248, en R v Leguabe, 1949 (4) SA 871 (T). In Roux se saak het klaer sy motor aan beskuldigde gegee om 'n besondere opdrag te gaan uitvoer. Hy het dit nie B gedoen nie maar op 'n p......
-
S v Le Grange
...the reasons for judgment. R. L. Selvan, for the appellant, was not called upon. H. van Rensburg, for the State, referred to R v Leguabe, 1949 (4) SA 871; R v Kuyler, 1960 (3) SA Selvan, in reply: Leguabe's case was wrongly decided. According to the reasoning in Kuyler's case, the Court in L......
-
Die Staat v Le Grange
.... . .'. Die Hof a quo het die vraag ontkennend beantwoord. Daarmee het die Hof afgewyk van die vroeëre uitsprake in R v Leguabe, 1949 (4) SA 871 (T), en R v Roux, 1946 E.D.L. 248, en die sienswyse gevolg wat in R v Kuyler, 1960 (3) SA 834 (O), uitgespreek is. In die sake van Roux en Kuyler ......
Get Started for Free
6 cases
-
Die Staat v Le Grange
.... . .'. Die Hof a quo het die vraag ontkennend beantwoord. Daarmee het die Hof afgewyk van die vroeëre uitsprake in R v Leguabe, 1949 (4) SA 871 (T), en R v Roux, 1946 E.D.L. 248, en die sienswyse gevolg wat in R v Kuyler, 1960 (3) SA 834 (O), uitgespreek is. In die sake van Roux en Kuyler ......
-
R v Kuyler
...gevolgtrekking waartoe hierbo geraak is, strydig is met die beslissings in die sake van Rex v Roux, 1946 E.D.L. 248, en R v Leguabe, 1949 (4) SA 871 (T). In Roux se saak het klaer sy motor aan beskuldigde gegee om 'n besondere opdrag te gaan uitvoer. Hy het dit nie B gedoen nie maar op 'n p......
-
S v Le Grange
...the reasons for judgment. R. L. Selvan, for the appellant, was not called upon. H. van Rensburg, for the State, referred to R v Leguabe, 1949 (4) SA 871; R v Kuyler, 1960 (3) SA Selvan, in reply: Leguabe's case was wrongly decided. According to the reasoning in Kuyler's case, the Court in L......
-
Die Staat v Le Grange
.... . .'. Die Hof a quo het die vraag ontkennend beantwoord. Daarmee het die Hof afgewyk van die vroeëre uitsprake in R v Leguabe, 1949 (4) SA 871 (T), en R v Roux, 1946 E.D.L. 248, en die sienswyse gevolg wat in R v Kuyler, 1960 (3) SA 834 (O), uitgespreek is. In die sake van Roux en Kuyler ......
Get Started for Free