Mandla Sithole v The State

The appellant was convicted in the Regional Court, Standerton, Mpumalanga on two counts of murder arising from a traffic collision that occurred on 4 April 2009 at Charl Cilliers. The collision resulted in the deaths of Ms Jeaneth Nontlantla Ngema and Mr Vusimuzi Petrus Ngema (the driver of one of the motor vehicles involved). The appellant was the driver of the other motor vehicle involved in the collision. Both the State and the appellant adduced evidence at trial. The appellant was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. On 18 April 2012, the appellant applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The Regional Magistrate granted leave only against sentence. The appellant lodged a petition in the high court on 3 November 2012. On 19 July 2013, the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria refused the petition but granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the refusal.

• Whether the high court ought to have granted leave to appeal against the convictions on two counts of murder
• Whether the appellant had reasonable prospects of success on appeal against his conviction

1. The appeal is upheld. 2. The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following: 'The applicant is granted leave to appeal to the Gauteng Division of the High Court against his conviction of two counts of murder in the Regional Court, Standerton, Mpumalanga.' 3. The matter is remitted to the court a quo to entertain the merits of the appeal.

Where an appellant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against a criminal conviction, leave to appeal must be granted. The test for granting leave to appeal is whether the appeal on the merits is arguable, and once this threshold is met, the refusal of leave to appeal cannot stand. The court applied the principles from S v Khoasasa 2003 (1) SACR 123 (SCA) and S v Tonkin 2014 (1) SACR 583 (SCA) regarding jurisdiction where leave to appeal was granted before the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 came into operation.

The court noted that it had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal since leave to appeal was granted before the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 came into operation, referring to the transitional provisions and the jurisprudence established in S v Khoasasa and S v Tonkin. While this was necessary for establishing jurisdiction, the broader discussion of the transitional arrangements constitutes guidance on how similar matters should be approached during the transition period between legislative regimes.

This case demonstrates the Supreme Court of Appeal's supervisory role in reviewing decisions refusing leave to appeal, particularly in criminal matters involving serious convictions. It confirms that where there are reasonable prospects of success on the merits, leave to appeal should be granted to ensure proper review of criminal convictions. The case also clarifies the jurisdictional framework under the transition between the old appeals regime and the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, confirming that leave granted before the Act came into operation remains valid.