About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAECPEHC 21
|
|
Panayiotou and Others v S (CC26/2016) [2018] ZAECPEHC 21 (17 May 2018)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN
CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH)
Case
No: CC 26/2016
In
the matter
between:
CHRISTOPHER
CONSTANTINOU PANAYIOTOU
First Applicant
SINETHEMBA
NEMEMBE
Second Applicant
ZOLANI
SIBEKO
Third Applicant
And
THE
STATE
Respondent
Coram:
Chetty J
Heard:
16
May 2018
Delivered:
17 May 2018
JUDGMENT
Chetty
J:
[1]
Historically, the criterion adopted by our courts in regard to the
question of leave to appeal was whether there was a reasonable
prospect of success. The benchmark now finds legislative expression
in sec 17 of the Superior Courts Act
[1]
which provides that leave to appeal may only be given where the judge
or judges concerned are of the opinion that the appeal would
have a
reasonable prospect of success or there is some other compelling
reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting
judgments on the matter under consideration.
[2]
Procedurally, the grounds upon which an application for leave to
appeal are predicated are required to be clearly and succinctly
tabulated in unambiguous terms to enable both the prosecuting
authority and the court to determine its parameters. The first
applicant’s
notice of application for leave to appeal is
unfortunately not a model of clarity and offends against the spirit
and purport of
section 316 of the
Criminal
Procedure Act
[2]
.
It constitutes an amalgam of inane and vituperative comment, and is
moreover interspersed with belligerent innuendo. Such deficiencies
ordinarily warrant that the application be struck from the roll but
to do so would ultimately serve no useful purpose and merely
delay
the inevitable outcome of this application.
[3]
The grounds upon which leave is sought on behalf of the second and
third applicants are, in essence a regurgitation of the submissions
advanced at the trial, matters which were fully addressed in my
judgment.
[4]
The oral and written arguments advanced by Mr
Price
studiously
circumvent the factual matrix which not only underpins the conviction
but established beyond any doubt that the first
applicant,
Christopher Panayiotou
orchestrated his wife,
Jayde’s
murder. The judgement on the other hand documents the full extent of
the plan which he and
Siyoni
devised. Consequently, the attack
against the judgment had perforce to avoid the crucial findings and
focus instead on a plethora
of disingenuous suppositions, the real
victim,
Jayde
, now being supplanted by other would be victims
in the personage of the first applicant,
Siyoni
and
Breakfast
.
As I emphasized in the judgment, the only victim is
Jayde
. The
prolix heads of argument serves only to obfuscate the real issues and
to inveigle me to grant leave. The submissions advanced
by Mr
Price
merely amplify the grounds upon which leave is sought and are, on
cogent analysis, entirely without merit. In my view, the contemplated
appeal by the applicants would have no reasonable prospect of success
nor is there any compelling reason why it should be heard.
In the
result the following order will issue:
1.
The
applications for leave to appeal by the applicants are dismissed.
________________________
D.
CHETTY
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
Obo
First Applicant:
Adv T.N. Price SC
Instructed
by
GRIEBENOW ATTORNEYS
157 Cape Road, Mill
Park, 6001
Tel: 0413735530
Obo
Second and Third Applicants:
Mr P. Daubermann
Obo
the Respondent:
Mr M. Stander
National Director of
Public Prosecutions
Uitenhage Road, North
End, Port Elizabeth
Tel: (012) 842 1400
[1]
Act No. 10 of 2013
[2]
Act No, 51 of 1977