IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case No : 2025- 203648
Date : 30.06.2026
In the matter between:
NALEDZANI JUSTIN RALUTANDA Applicant
and 10
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Respondent
J U D G M E N T ( Ex Tempore)
MOULTRIE J :
The applicant appears in person before me in the
unopposed motion court having been requisitioned from prison
where he is serving life imprisonment, having been sentenced
by a judge of this court on 3 September 2010. He launched an
appeal, which was dismissed. 20
In the current application, the applicant seeks an order
reviewing his sentence, ostensibly under Rule 53 of the High
Court Rules (which governs “proceedings to bring under review
the decision or proceedings of any lower court and of any
tribunal, board or officer performing judicial, quasi -judicial or
administrative functions ”) on the ground s that there was a gross
irregularity in the sentencing proceedings before the High
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE : YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES : YES / NO
(3) REVISED
SIGNATURE : .............................
2
court .
I have carefully considered the authorities referred to
by the applicant during the course of argument . It is patently
apparent that section 22 of the Superior Courts Act , 10 of 2013
is inapplicable, as it sets out the grounds for the review of the
proceedings of a Magistrates ’ Court , which is not the case here.
I can also disc ern nothing in the judgment of Satchwell J in
Taunyane v S [2016] ZAGPJHC 308 that would give me the
authority or power to grant an order of the nature sought . I was
not referred to, nor am I aware of , any authority for the 10
proposition that a Court (and particularly a single judge of the
High Court ) is clothe d with the power or authority to grant the
relief sought
It is apparent to me ( despite the absence of any
opposition and without reaching any final conclusions as to
whether it was properly served on the respondent ) that the
application falls to be dismissed as it is entirely misconceived.
Indeed, the applicant informed me during the hearing that he
launched it when he “ saw an opportunity ” upon the advent of
electronic filing via Court Online , some 16 years after his 20
sentenc ing. I therefore grant the following order :
The application is dismissed.
MOULTRIE J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
Date heard and decided: 30 June 2026
For the Applicant: In person
For the Respondent: No appearance