S v Ngubenkomo
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Judge | Jennett JP and Kotzé J |
Judgment Date | 08 February 1968 |
Citation | 1968 (2) SA 109 (E) |
Hearing Date | 02 February 1968 |
Court | Eastern Cape Division |
F Jennett, J.P.:
The appellant, a Bantu male, was convicted of the theft of 11 sheep and he was sentenced for that offence. His defence was that the sheep in question were his own property. The magistrate held that the complainant had established that the sheep belonged to him.
G An appeal to this Court succeeded. In allowing the appeal the Court dealt with what it regarded as two serious criticisms of the complainant's evidence.
The judgment then proceeded:
'In the circumstances it seems to me that the magistrate should have had a serious doubt as to whether the complainant's identification of the sheep was reliable and, moreover, whether the appellant's claim to ownership of the sheep might not in the circumstances reasonably have H been true. It was not necessary that the magistrate should have believed the appellant's version but he was bound to acquit him if he could not hold that it was not reasonably possible that the appellant's version might be true.'
And later:
'In my view, therefore, despite any valid criticism which might be made of the appellant's version, the magistrate was not, on the evidence before us, entitled to hold that the appellant's claim to the sheep might not reasonably be true and he should therefore not have convicted him. In holding as we do, we must not be understood to be finding that the sheep in question do belong to the appellant or that he is entitled to have them released to him. This is a matter on which he
Jennett JP
must take such legal steps as he is advised to take. The effect of this judgment is simply that the evidence was insufficient to justify a conviction of stock theft.'
Thereafter, on 21st November, 1967, appellant made application for the A return of the sheep to him. Only 10 sheep were involved as one of the sheep had been slaughtered by the appellant before his arrest on the charge of theft of stock.
The magistrate ordered that the 10 sheep be kept by the complainant 'until such time as ownership has been proved'. He made provision, too, for the retention of the proceeds of the sale of the skin or the meat of any of the sheep dying in the interim.
B Appellant now seeks to appeal against that order.
The magistrate was dealing with an application under sec. 360 (1) of Act 56 of 1955. In the light of the decision of this Court in the appeal he could not make any special order as contemplated in the first part of C that section. It follows that, as the sheep had...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
S v Marais
...the magistrate into circumstances which would justify a decree of forfeiture. In support of his argument he referred to S v Ngubenkomo 1968 (2) SA 109 (E) at 110 and R v Khan 1961 (1) SA 282 (N) at 283. In the former case JENNETT JP said that the Court had no appeal jurisdiction under s 103......
-
S v Marais
...the magistrate into circumstances which would justify a decree of forfeiture. In support of his argument he referred to S v Ngubenkomo 1968 (2) SA 109 (E) at 110 and R v Khan 1961 (1) SA 282 (N) at 283. In the former case JENNETT JP said that the Court had no appeal jurisdiction under s 103......
-
S v Ramos
...S v Nathaniel and Others 1987 (2) SA 225 (SWA): referred to S v Ndevu and Others 1991 (1) SACR 416 (E): referred to S v Ngubenkomo 1968 (2) SA 109 (E): referred to J 2005 (2) SACR p461 S v Rosenthal 1980 (1) SA 65 (A): referred to. A Legislation cited Statutes The Constitution of the Republ......
-
S v Venter
...(1) SA 291 (C), as authority for this proposition and also, by analogy, to R. C v. Duiker, 1958 (3) SA 853 (T), and S v Ngubenkomo, 1968 (2) SA 109 (E) at p. It seems to me, with respect, that the above cases correctly lay down that an appeal does not lie against an order by a magistrate pu......
-
S v Marais
...the magistrate into circumstances which would justify a decree of forfeiture. In support of his argument he referred to S v Ngubenkomo 1968 (2) SA 109 (E) at 110 and R v Khan 1961 (1) SA 282 (N) at 283. In the former case JENNETT JP said that the Court had no appeal jurisdiction under s 103......
-
S v Marais
...the magistrate into circumstances which would justify a decree of forfeiture. In support of his argument he referred to S v Ngubenkomo 1968 (2) SA 109 (E) at 110 and R v Khan 1961 (1) SA 282 (N) at 283. In the former case JENNETT JP said that the Court had no appeal jurisdiction under s 103......
-
S v Ramos
...S v Nathaniel and Others 1987 (2) SA 225 (SWA): referred to S v Ndevu and Others 1991 (1) SACR 416 (E): referred to S v Ngubenkomo 1968 (2) SA 109 (E): referred to J 2005 (2) SACR p461 S v Rosenthal 1980 (1) SA 65 (A): referred to. A Legislation cited Statutes The Constitution of the Republ......
-
S v Venter
...(1) SA 291 (C), as authority for this proposition and also, by analogy, to R. C v. Duiker, 1958 (3) SA 853 (T), and S v Ngubenkomo, 1968 (2) SA 109 (E) at p. It seems to me, with respect, that the above cases correctly lay down that an appeal does not lie against an order by a magistrate pu......