The applicant, Mr Matric Luphondo, a former Acting Director of Public Prosecutions in Mpumalanga, is facing seven counts of corruption and three counts of defeating or obstructing the ends of justice in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria. The charges arise from allegations that he, together with his co-accused and an investigating officer, attempted to bribe a prosecutor to secure the withdrawal or avoidance of prosecution against his co-accused. During his trial, evidence revealed that he was subjected to an undercover ‘trap’ operation under s 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act. During a trial-within-a-trial on admissibility, Luphondo raised an additional special plea under s 106(1)(h) of the CPA, contending that the prosecutors lacked title to prosecute him because the required written authorisation under the National Prosecution Policy Directives had not been properly issued. The High Court dismissed the special plea. The High Court declined to entertain an application for leave to appeal, prompting the applicant to apply directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Two judges of the SCA refused leave to appeal. The applicant then sought reconsideration of that refusal under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.
The application for reconsideration of the order refusing leave to appeal was dismissed, and each party was ordered to pay its own costs.
This judgment clarifies the application of stare decisis within the Supreme Court of Appeal, confirming that all SCA judgments are of equal authority but that, in the event of conflict, the decision of a larger bench prevails. It also provides authoritative guidance on the scope and application of s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act following its amendment, and reaffirms the limited circumstances in which reconsideration of a refusal of leave to appeal will be entertained. In criminal procedure, it underscores that alleged non-compliance with internal prosecution policy directives does not lightly deprive prosecutors of title to prosecute.