Pieter Ettienne Jaftha v The State

The appellant was convicted in 1998 in the Montagu Magistrates’ Court of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, in contravention of s 122(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 29 of 1989. This was his third such conviction. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment under s 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. His appeal against sentence was dismissed by the Cape High Court in 1999, but due to an administrative failure this outcome was never communicated to the magistrates’ court or to the appellant. As a result, no warrant was executed and nearly ten years elapsed before the error was discovered. During this period, the appellant believed his appeal had succeeded, gave up alcohol entirely, rehabilitated himself, established a stable family life, and became a successful businessman. When a warrant was eventually issued in 2008, he sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal and placed new evidence regarding his changed circumstances before the court.

The appeal was upheld. The judgment of the Cape High Court was set aside. The appellant’s sentence of three years’ imprisonment was replaced with a sentence of a fine of R10 000 or, failing payment, two years’ imprisonment.

The case is significant for confirming that South African appellate courts may, in exceptional circumstances, admit and consider new evidence arising after conviction and sentence, and may themselves substitute an appropriate sentence. It underscores the interests of justice in sentencing, particularly where administrative failures cause extreme delays, and clarifies the flexibility of appellate powers in sentencing matters.