S v Mngonyama

JurisdictionSouth Africa
JudgeBeck JP
Judgment Date16 March 1995
Docket Number118/94
CourtTranskei High Court
Hearing Date16 March 1995
Citation1995 (3) SA 246 (TK)

Beck JP:

This is an application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. Counsel for the applicants was initially unable to indicate to which Court an appeal from a judgment in a criminal trial D before the General Division of the Transkei Supreme Court now falls to be directed. He has, however, subsequently submitted that s 3(1)(a) of the Transkeian Supreme Court Act 35 of 1983 (Tk) confers upon the Transkei Supreme Court the jurisdiction to hear appeals by a Full Bench of three Judges, by reason of the following proviso in that section:

'Provided that the Chief Justice, or, in his absence, the senior available E Judge of the General Division, may at any time direct that any matter be heard by a Full Court consisting of so many Judges as he may determine.'

The submission is untenable. Section 3(1)(a) of the Transkei Supreme Court Act deals only with a Court of the General Division sitting as a F Court of first instance and has nothing whatsoever to do with such a Court sitting as a Court of appeal. In terms of s 45(2)(a) of the Republic of Transkei Constitution Act 15 of 1976 (Tk), and s 3(1)(b) of the Transkeian Supreme Court Act, the General Division of the Transkei Supreme Court was given appellate jurisdiction only in relation to appeals from all lower courts. Jurisdiction to hear appeals from judgments or orders of the G General Division vested only in the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Transkei in terms of s 45(3) of the Republic of Transkei Constitution Act.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Transkei had ceased to exist, save for the purpose of disposing of noted appeals that were still H pending at the date of commencement of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Third Amendment Act 13 of 1994. However, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa has been given jurisdiction over the whole of the national territory, including therefore the Transkei, in terms of s 241(1A) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 200 of 1993, as amended.

I In a recent judgment (as yet unreported) of the Bophuthatswana Supreme Court in a civil matter, Steelchrome (Pty) Ltd v Jacobs and Others, [*1] Comrie J held that appeals from the General Division of the Bophuthatswana Supreme Court now lie, on leave given, to the South

Beck JP

A African Appellate Division. I respectfully agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the learned Judge. In my...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Vulindlela Furniture Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd v MEC, Department of Education and Culture, Eastern Cape, and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...of Police 1979 (4) SA 902 (W): considered Rivett-Carnac v Wiggins 1997 (3) SA 80 (C) (1997 (4) BCLR 562): considered B S v Mngonyama 1995 (3) SA 246 (Tk) (1995 (1) SACR 516): referred S v Nocuse and Others 1995 (3) SA 240 (Tk) (1995 (1) SACR 510): referred to S v Zuma and Others 1995 (2) SA......
  • S v Nocuse and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...trial, satisfy the Court that he has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal before being allowed to proceed to a higher Court. J 1995 (3) SA p246 White A The final requirement is that the limitation must not only be reasonable, but also necessary. All the arguments set out above make th......
2 cases
  • Vulindlela Furniture Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd v MEC, Department of Education and Culture, Eastern Cape, and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...of Police 1979 (4) SA 902 (W): considered Rivett-Carnac v Wiggins 1997 (3) SA 80 (C) (1997 (4) BCLR 562): considered B S v Mngonyama 1995 (3) SA 246 (Tk) (1995 (1) SACR 516): referred S v Nocuse and Others 1995 (3) SA 240 (Tk) (1995 (1) SACR 510): referred to S v Zuma and Others 1995 (2) SA......
  • S v Nocuse and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...trial, satisfy the Court that he has a reasonable prospect of success on appeal before being allowed to proceed to a higher Court. J 1995 (3) SA p246 White A The final requirement is that the limitation must not only be reasonable, but also necessary. All the arguments set out above make th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT