Jetha v Rex[1] is an important case in South African criminal law, with its bearing on the defence of impossibility.
In March 1929, after his return, he was convicted of contravening section 142(a) of the Insolvency Act,[2] in that he had failed to attend the first meeting of his creditors, held on November 11, 1926.
The magistrate, in his reasons, stated that he was satisfied, on the facts set out above, that it was physically impossible for appellant to attend the meeting.
The magistrate referred to R v Mahomed Abbas[3][4] and R v Mayer Brothers,[5] and said that, since the trial, his attention had been drawn to the case of R v Moosa.
In Rex v Korsten,[7] a slightly earlier case, Dove-Wilson JP had rejected the defence of impossibility, since in there the duty with which the accused had failed to comply was an absolute one: "It is no excuse for him to say that he was ignorant [of the law...].