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 303
|
|
S v Jikityala (A301/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 303 (12 May 2015)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH GAUTENG,
PRETORIA)
REVIEW CASE NO:
A216/2013
CASE NUMBER:
A301/2015
DATE: 12 MAY 2015
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO
OTHER JUDGES
THE STATE
VS
MUZAWUPHELI
JIKITYALA
REVIEW JUDGMENT
KUBUSHI, J
[1] This is a
special review in terms of
s 304
of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977
. The matter was placed before this court by the acting
magistrate of the magistrate’s court Oberholzer, M Hattingh,
with
a request that the sentence imposed be rectified.
[2] The accused in
this matter was charged with the possession of stolen property in
terms of s 36 of the General Law Amendment
Act 62 of 1955. He pleaded
guilty and the trial court found him guilty as charged.
[3] The following
sentence was meted by the trial court:
“
Y
ou
are fined Rl 500 or 90 days’ imprisonment which are suspended
for five years on condition that you not be convicted of
theft
committed during the period of suspension.”
[4]
The sentence as stated is clearly wrong and was a
bona
fide
error
as the acting magistrate has also realised. It should, therefore, be
rectified.
[5]
As this is a technical oversight it is unnecessary to remit this
matter to the trial court and instead this court is better
positioned
to correct such error and reword the sentence appropriately.
[6] In the
circumstances I consider that the following order should issue:
1. The conviction is
confirmed.
2. The sentence
imposed on 19 March 2015 is hereby set aside and substituted with the
following:
“
1.
The accused is sentenced to a fine of R1 500 (One Thousand Five
Hundred Rand) or 90 (ninety) days imprisonment which is wholly
suspended for 5 five years on condition that the accused is not
convicted of a contravention of section 36 of the General Law
Amendment Act 62 of 1955 committed during the period of suspension.
2. In terms of
section 103 (2) of the Firearms Act 60 of 2000 the accused is
declared unfit to possess a firearm.”
E. M. KUBUSHI,
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
I concur and it is
so ordered
T.M. MAKGOKA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT