About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAGPPHC 314
|
|
S v Machaule; S v Mkonto; S v Mahlungu (A279/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 314 (9 May 2016)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
A279/16
DATE: 09/5/2016
HIGH COURT REF. NO.
:
126/16
REVIEW CASE NO
:
SR 4/2016/LAM
CASE NUMBER
:
D3090/14
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
THE STATE versus
THOMAS MACHAULE
THE STATE versus
SABELO MKONTO
THE STATE versus
TEBOGO MAHLANGU
REVIEW JUDGMENT
TOLMAY, J:
[1]
This matter came before me by way of special
review.
[2]
The accused in the first matter (Thomas Machaule)
a 40 year old male was arraigned in the Magistrate Court, Daveyton,
on a charge
of contravening
sec 65(2)(a)/(b)
of the
National Road
Traffic Act 93 of 1996
- driving a motor vehicle with excessive
amount of alcohol in his body. He pleaded guilty in terms of
sec
112(1)(a)
of Act 51 of 1977. The state accepted his plea whereupon he
was convicted and sentenced to R 10 000-00 fine or 3 months
imprisonment
that is wholly suspended for 5 years on condition that
he is not convicted of the same or similar offence committed during
the
period of suspension.
[2]
The accused on the second matter (Sabelo Mkonto)
a 26 year old male was arraigned in the Magistrate Court, Daveyton,
on a charge
of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He
pleaded guilty in terms of sec 112(1)(a) of Act 51 of 1977. The state
accepted
his plea whereupon he was convicted and sentenced to R10
000-00 fine or 3 months imprisonment that is wholly suspended for 5
years
on condition that he is not convicted of the same or similar
offence committed during the period of suspension.
[3]
The accused in the third matter (Tebogo Mahlangu)
a 24 year old male was arraigned in the Magistrate Court, Daveyton,
on a charge
of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He
pleaded guilty in terms of sec 112(1)(a) of Act 51 of 1977. The state
accepted
his plea whereupon he was convicted and sentenced to R10
000-00 fine or 3 months imprisonment that is wholly suspended
for
5 years on condition that he is not convicted of the same or
similar offence committed during the period of suspension.
[4]
The Acting Head of the Daveyton Magistrate's
Court submitted the review to this Court and indicated that the
presiding officer exceeded
the maximum fine prescribed by sec 112 of
Act 51 of 1977. The presiding officer confirmed in a written
declaration that
he erred in imposing
a fine in excess of the amount
prescribed.
[5]
The DPP's view was obtained and they are of the
view that the sentence should be set aside and substituted for a
competent sentence.
[6]
I
am of the view that this approach is correct.
[7]
The following order is made:
7.1.
in all three instances the conviction is
confirmed, but the sentences are set aside and
substituted with the following:
7.1.1.
Each of the accused is sentenced to a fine of R5
000-00 or 3 months imprisonment wholly suspended for 5 years on
condition that
he is not convicted of a similar offence committed
during the period of suspension.
_________________________
R G TOLMAY
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
I agree
_________________________
C PRETORIUS
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT