About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAFSHC 1
|
|
S v Ramahetlane and Others (R7/2019 - R24/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 1 (7 February 2019)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE
STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Review
numbers 7/2019 – 24/2019
In
the matter between:
THE
STATE
and
THABISO
RAMAHETLANE - CASE NO: R 24/2019
THABO
MAKGATO - CASE NO: R 23/2019
ISAAC
TANKI MPHARALALA - CASE NO: R 22/2019
MATHABA
JAMES LINYOLOHO - CASE NO: R 21/2019
MONDE
MICHAEL MPHATSOE - CASE NO: R 20/2019
TAYOB
JOOMA - CASE NO: R 19/2019
CHEN
XIAOQIANG - CASE NO: R 18/2019
YUSUF
ABDULLA - CASE NO: R 17/2019
ALPHONCE
MASILO KHOBOKO - CASE NO: R 16/2019
TRAVERS
JUSTIN JOHNS - CASE NO: R 15/2019
ANSUS
BELUNSAN - CASE NO: R 14/2019
SABELO
OTHEN’YEL NMLENGETFWA - CASE NO: R 13/2019
FRANCE
MOKOENA - CASE NO: R 12/2019
SIYABONGA
MICHAEL MACHI - CASE NO: R 11/2019
TSHILISO
MAKETEKETE - CASE NO: R 10/2019
MOHAILA
JOMANE - CASE NO: R 09/2019
KHOPOLO
VINCENT NTHONTHO- CASE NO: R 08/2019
MARTHIMS
RUDOLF RAUTENBACH- CASE NO: R 07/2019
CORAM:
MUSI, JP
et
DAFFUE, J
JUDGMENT
BY:
DAFFUE, J
DELIVERED
ON:
7 FEBRUARY 2019
REVIEW
[1]
The proceedings in all 18 matters have been sent to the High Court on
review. The first 17 matters are automatic reviews
as the
accused were unrepresented, whilst the last matter, that of the
accused, Mr Rautenbach, is a special review insofar as he
was
represented by an attorney.
[2]
In all instances the accused were charged with contravention of
section 59(4)
of the
National Road Traffic Act, 93 of 1996
, to wit
that they exceeded the speed limit of 100 km/h on the R26 public road
near Clocolan by travelling at speeds ranging from
148 to 165 km/h
respectively. They all admitted that:
2.1 their actions were
unlawful and intentional;
2.2 the speed limit of
100 km/h on the R26 public road is 100 kph;
2.3 they had travelled at
the speed accused of in the respective charge sheets.
[3]
The same magistrate, who has been appointed to the substantive rank
of magistrate on 4 January 2013, was the presiding officer
in all
matters. It is apparent that her questioning in the first 17
cases virtually followed the same pattern in each case.
[4]
In the last matter the accused, Mr Rautenbach, was represented by an
attorney who handed in the accused’s signed
s 112(2)
statement
upon which he was convicted. The accused went so far to admit that
the Truvelo apparatus was duly calibrated, but that
is not sufficient
anymore.
[5]
On 28 December 2018 the full bench of this Division handed down
judgment in
The State v Enoc
Phuzi
, case number
R254/2018. Neither the questioning by the presiding magistrate in the
first 17 matters, nor the admissions by Mr Rautenbach
comply with the
requirements laid down by the full bench as set out in paragraph
[39](b) of the judgment.
[6]
The
stare decisis
principle applies and consequently all convictions and sentences
should be set aside.
[7]
The conviction and sentence is set aside in respect of each of the
following matters:
CASE NO: R 24/2019
THABISO RAMAHETLANE
CASE NO: R 23/2019 THABO
MAKGATO
CASE NO: R 22/2019 ISAAC
TANKI MPHARALALA
CASE NO: R 21/2019
MATHABA JAMES LINYOLOHO
CASE NO: R 20/2019 MONDE
MICHAEL MPHATSOE
CASE NO: R 19/2019TAYOB
JOOMA
CASE NO: R 18/2019 CHEN
XIAOQIANG
CASE NO: R 17/2019 YUSUF
ABDULLA
CASE NO: R 16/2019
ALPHONCE MASILO KHOBOKO
CASE NO: R 15/2019
TRAVERS JUSTIN JOHNS
CASE NO: R 14/2019 ANSUS
BELUNSAN
CASE NO: R 13/2019 SABELO
OTHEN’YEL NMLENGETFWA
CASE NO: R 12/2019 FRANCE
MOKOENA
CASE NO: R 11/2019
SIYABONGA MICHAEL MACHI
CASE NO: R 10/2019
TSHILISO MAKETEKETE
CASE NO: R 09/2019
MOHAILA JOMANE
CASE NO: R 08/2019
KHOPOLO VINCENT NTHONTHO
CASE NO: R 07/2019
MARTHIMS RUDOLF RAUTENBACH
____________
J
P DAFFUE, J
I
concur
________________
C J
MUSI, JP