Balland v S (A439/2012) [2025] ZAGPJHC 923 (17 September 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 923 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Balland v S (A439/2012) [2025] ZAGPJHC 923 (17 September 2025) Balland v S (A439/2012) [2025] ZAGPJHC 923 (17 September 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_923.html sino date 17 September 2025 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NUMBER: A439/2012 (1)    REPORTABLE:  NO (2)    OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)    NOT REVISED 17 September 2025 In the matter between: BALLAND,  ARNOLD                                                           Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT YACOOB J: (KUNY J CONCURRING) [1] This appeal served on our criminal appeal roll on 11 August 2025. No heads of argument were filed. The State had filed a notice of intention to have the matter struck off the roll due to the failure to file heads of argument. [2] In addition, a notice of surrender and detention warrant was uploaded as part of the record, dated 10 April 2024. This indicated that the appeal was previously struck from the roll, on 20 November 2014, and Mr Balland, the appellant, who was apparently on bail pending appeal, had been at large for almost ten years. [3] The court then requested the State Advocate, Ms Moseki, to establish whether Mr Balland was in fact still at large, and if so how it was that his attorney procured a power of attorney and managed to get the appeal set down again. [4] It was our view that it would not be in the interests of justice to simply strike the matter from the roll without more. If Mr Balland was at large, his attorney would have to be ordered to explain how a power of attorney was obtained, and an order would be made that the matter may not be re-enrolled until he was once again in custody. If Mr Balland was in custody, a different order would be appropriate. [5] Ms Moseki’s enquiries were fruitless for almost a month. However, on 12 September 2025, an affidavit was provided from a Clerk of the Court, Protea Magistrates Court, confirming that in fact Mr Balland, the appellant, had been re-arrested on 19 April 2024, 9 days after the warrant was issued, and was currently serving his sentence at the Kutama Sinthumule Correctional Centre. [6] In those circumstances many of our concerns fall away. However, we must still do more than simply remove or strike the matter, to avoid a situation where the matter is repeatedly enrolled and removed without being determined. [7] For these reasons, we make the following order: 1. The appeal is struck from the roll. 2. The appeal may not be re-enrolled unless the appellant files: a. An application for condonation, setting out in full the reasons for non-compliance and why it is in the interests of justice to enroll the appeal. b. Heads of argument on the merits of the appeal. JUDGE S YACOOB JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG I AGREE. JUDGE S KUNY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their legal representatives by email, by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines, and by publication of the judgment to the South African Legal Information Institute. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 17 September 2025. APPEARANCES ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT:                         No appearance ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:             E Moseki Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Johannesburg sino noindex make_database footer start