imprisoned. The court found that there was no proper appeal before court and addition that there are no prospects of success. The Appeal was struck from the roll. ___________________________________________________________________ ORDER ___________________________________________________________________ 1. The applications for condonation by each of the Appellants are refused. 2. The Appeals are removed from the roll. ___________________________________________________________________ APPEAL JUDGMENT ____________________________________________________________________ JANUARY, J (CHEDA, J concurring) [1] The appellants lodged appeals in this matter out of time and are both applying for condonation. Their appeals were initially against both convictions and sentences but they have both in the meantime withdrawn the appeals against their convictions. The Respondent is opposing the application for condonation and submitted that before an appeal court should entertain an appeal there should be a valid notice of appeal. [2] The appellants appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr. Matota. [3] Respondent submitted that they should know what the grounds of appeal are and in the absence of any ground the appeal should be struck from the roll.
imprisoned. The court found that there was no proper appeal before court and addition that there are no prospects of success. The Appeal was struck from the roll. ___________________________________________________________________ ORDER ___________________________________________________________________ 1. The applications for condonation by each of the Appellants are refused. 2. The Appeals are removed from the roll. ___________________________________________________________________ APPEAL JUDGMENT ____________________________________________________________________ JANUARY, J (CHEDA, J concurring) [1] The appellants lodged appeals in this matter out of time and are both applying for condonation. Their appeals were initially against both convictions and sentences but they have both in the meantime withdrawn the appeals against their convictions. The Respondent is opposing the application for condonation and submitted that before an appeal court should entertain an appeal there should be a valid notice of appeal. [2] The appellants appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr. Matota. [3] Respondent submitted that they should know what the grounds of appeal are and in the absence of any ground the appeal should be struck from the roll.
Sheefeni%20v%20The%20State%20(CA%2025-2011)%20[2015]%20NAHCNLD%2032%20(24%20July%202015).docx