The State v Shepherd Gonese

The accused was charged and convicted of contravening Section 33(1)(a) as read with Section 46 of Statutory Instrument 32 of 2007 (Housing and Building Act - Rent Regulations). The accused had assisted the complainant's wife to remove property from the matrimonial home following domestic problems, as she was leaving her husband. There was no landlord-tenant relationship between the complainant and the persons who removed the property from his home.

• Whether the accused could be convicted under Section 33(1)(a) of the Rent Regulations SI 32/07 for assisting in the removal of property from a matrimonial home in the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship
• Whether the conduct complained of constituted a criminal offence under the Rent Regulations
• Whether a person could be convicted as a socio criminis (accomplice) where the principal conduct does not amount to a criminal offence

The conviction and sentence were quashed and set aside. A warrant of liberation was issued for the accused on 27 February 2014.

Section 33(1)(a) of the Housing and Building Act (Rent Regulations) Statutory Instrument 32 of 2007 applies exclusively to lessors in a landlord-tenant relationship and cannot be applied to situations involving removal of property from a matrimonial home where no such relationship exists. The principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius applies - by specifically mentioning only the lessor, the legislature excluded all other persons from the scope of the offence. A person cannot be convicted as an accomplice (socio criminis) to an offence where the principal conduct does not itself constitute a criminal offence.

The court noted that the purpose of the statutory instrument is to protect lodgers from exploitation by landlords. The removal of property from a matrimonial home following domestic problems falls outside the protective scope of this legislation. The scrutinising Regional Magistrate's observation that there was no landlord/tenant relationship and therefore no offence was committed was endorsed by the reviewing judge.

This case demonstrates the importance of proper statutory interpretation in criminal matters and reinforces the principle that criminal offences must be strictly construed. It clarifies that Section 33(1)(a) of the Rent Regulations SI 32/07 applies exclusively to landlord-tenant relationships and cannot be extended to cover domestic disputes involving removal of property from matrimonial homes. The case also establishes that there can be no conviction as an accomplice (socio criminis) where the underlying conduct does not constitute a criminal offence.