Mathebula v S and Another (1439/2024) [2025] ZASCA 189 (12 December 2025)

Case Note

Mathebula v The State and Another (1439/2024) [2025] ZASCA 189
Date: 12 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications for criminal law and procedure, particularly concerning the principles surrounding a permanent stay of prosecution. The court reaffirmed the stringent standards necessary for a permanent stay, emphasizing that it serves as a drastic remedy. This case provides clarity on the necessary exceptional circumstances required to warrant such drastic legal relief, reinforcing public interest in the integrity of the judicial process and a defendant's right to a fair trial.

Cases Cited

1. Sanderson v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape 1998 (2) SA 38 (CC)
2. Wild and Another v Hoffert NO and Others 1998 (3) SA 695 (CC)
3. Moyo and Another v Minister of Police and Others [2019] ZACC 40; 2020 BCLR 91 (CC)
4. Minister of Safety & Security v Slabbert [2009] ZASCA 163; [2010] 2 All SA 474 (SCA)
5. Barkhuizen v Napier [2007] ZACC 5; 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC)
6. Motsepe v Commissioner for Inland Revenue 1997 (2) SA 898 (CC)

Legislation Cited

• Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998
• Attorneys Act, No. 53 of 1979 (amended)
• Legal Practice Act No. 28 of 2014
• Trust Property Control Act No. 57 of 1988
• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (specifically s 172(1))

Rules of Court Cited

None cited specifically in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This case concerns an appeal by Mpina Abednego Mathebula against a decision of the Free State Division of the High Court, which denied his application for a permanent stay of criminal proceedings against him. The court evaluated whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying the stay and whether Mathebula faced trial-related prejudice. The Supreme Court of Appeal concluded that Mathebula did not meet the required standard for exceptional circumstances, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

Key Issues

The key issues in this case revolve around: - Whether exceptional circumstances warrant a permanent stay of prosecution. - The interpretation of trial-related prejudice within the context of criminal law. - The rights of the accused versus the need for a prosecutorial decision based on the rule of law.

Held

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant did not establish exceptional circumstances to justify a permanent stay of prosecution. It was determined that the allegations against him did not constitute trial-related prejudice. Thus, the appeal was dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

THE FACTS

The appellant, Mpina Abednego Mathebula, is a Judge of the High Court in Bloemfontein, formerly a practicing attorney. He faced charges of theft, fraud, and money laundering related to alleged misappropriations of funds from the Road Accident Fund (RAF). The prosecution claimed that Mathebula failed to deposit settlement amounts due to a client into a trust account, among other misappropriations.

Following multiple unsuccessful attempts to withdraw the charges, Mathebula sought a permanent stay of prosecution in the High Court, arguing that the decision to charge him was irrational and inconsistent with constitutional norms. The High Court dismissed this application, prompting Mathebula's appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

THE ISSUES

The main legal question for the court was whether the appellant had shown the extraordinary circumstances necessary for the granting of a permanent stay of prosecution. This included evaluating whether Mathebula faced any trial-related prejudice from the prosecution and whether the charges brought against him were justified.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the standards for granting a permanent stay of prosecution, referencing prior judgments in Sanderson v Attorney-General and Wild and Another v Hoffert. It reiterated that the applicant must typically demonstrate trial-related prejudice or, in rare cases, extraordinary circumstances that justify the remedy.

In Mathebula's case, the court found that his assertions of lack of legal foundation for the prosecution and social prejudice did not amount to trial-related prejudice under the accepted definitions established in prior case law. The court emphasized that inherent inconveniences faced by an accused do not equal trial-related prejudice sufficient to stay proceedings.

It further noted that the appellant's claims represented a change in position, moving from procedural challenges to substantive defenses not previously argued in the High Court. The court reiterated the importance of leaving the merits of the allegations for resolution in the trial context, thus upholding the integrity of both the prosecution and judicial systems.

REMEDY

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs against Mathebula. The dismissal was underscored by the determination that the appellant did not present a plausible case for a permanent stay based on the legal standards established in South African jurisprudence.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The key legal principles affirmed in this judgment include: - The stringent conditions required to warrant a permanent stay of criminal proceedings, highlighting the necessity of demonstrating trial-related prejudice or extraordinary circumstances. - The court's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process, emphasizing that substantial legal claims must be articulated in the initial forum. - The recognition of the inherent burdens of criminal prosecution on accused individuals does not constitute a legal justification for halting such proceedings.

This case underscores the balance between an accused's rights and the public interest in efficient prosecution of criminal matters. It signals to practitioners the careful navigation required in asserting claims for stays in proceedings based on alleged prejudices.