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
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 106
|
|
S v Siyenga (A139/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 106 (26 February 2015)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
HIGH COURT REF. NO.:
63/15
MAGISTRATE’S
CASE NO.: 2644/12
MAGISTRATE’S
SERIAL NO.: R27/14
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES
CASE NUMBER: A139/15
DATE: 24 February
2015
THE STATE
And
JOHN SHAGA SIYENGA
REVIEW JUDGMENT
[1] This matter
landed on my lap as a special review. It is a partly heard matter
which was heard by one Mr. Sambo, a contract magistrate.
If anything,
this matter is a classic example of lack of patriotism and lack of
accountability on some of the South African citizens.
[2] The accused in
this matter, Mr. John Shaga Siyenga, was charged with defeating the
ends of justice by the distict court at Nelspruit
or Mbombela. On 20
May 2013 the accused pleaded not guilty before the aforementioned Mr.
Sambo and, through his legal representative,
made a plea-explanation
as enjoined by the provisions of s 115 of the Criminal Procedure Act
51 of 1977 (“the CPA”).
The State then led the evidence
of certain witnesses who were duly cross-examined by the accused's
legal representative. The last
of this witness testified, on 28 May
2013, after the matter was adjourned to 20 June 2013 for
continuation. Since then the matter
was postponed on several
occasions by other magistrates simply because of the unavailability
of the said Mr. Sambo. I have been
informed that Mr. Sambo has failed
to finalise this matter despite the fact that he postponed the matter
on 3 February 2014, 2
April 2014 and 10 April 2014. This matter has
been on the roll since 21 December 2012.
[3] It is now clear
that unless the proceedings are,or part of them is, set aside the
matter will never be finalised.
[4] I make the
following order:
1. The proceedings
are hereby set aside only in respect of the evidence of the witnesses
who already have testified;
2. The plea and
plea-explanation of the accused shall stand;
3. The state must
lead evidence of the state witness again, and;
4. The matter shall
then proceed in the normal course of a criminal trial until its
conclusion.
P.M. MABUSE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
I agree, and it is
so ordered.
N.M. MAVUNDLA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT