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
>>
2014
>>
[2014] ZAGPPHC 331
|
|
S v Malenza (A 223/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 331 (28 March 2014)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
High Court Reference
No: 251/14
Magistrate’s
Serial No: 2/14
Magistrate’s
Case No: L955/13
Case number:
A223/2014
Date: 28 March 2014
Not reportable
Not of interest to
other judges
In the matter
between:
THE STATE
And
ISAAC MALENZA
REVIEW
JUDGMENT
MOLEFE J:
[1]
This is a special review which came before this court in terms of
section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (“the
CPA
”)
.
In
this matter the accused was found guilty of contravention of section
49 (1) (a) read with section 9 (3) (a) of the Immigration
Act, Act 13
of 2002 and was sentenced to a:
“
Fine
of 40 days imprisonment, a further 50 days suspended for five years
on condition that you are not charged guilty of contravening
section
49 (1) (A), Act 13 of 2002 during your time of suspension
The
accused was legally represented during the trial.
[2] The Acting
Senior Magistrate, Ms A. Du Preez, sent the matter on special review
under a cover of a letter dated 11 February
2014 which read as
follows:
“
Met
die oorhoofse nagaan van die betrokke saak om judisiele
kwaliteitsbeheer uit te oefen is gemerk dat die saak in terme van
artikel
112(1) (a) Wet 51/1977, afgehandel is.
Die betrokke
landdros het egter direkte gevangenisstraf opgele. In die lig van die
bepalings van artikel 112(1) (a) is die vonnis
derhalve onreëlmatig.
Daar is vasgestel
dat die betrokke beskuidigde steeds in die gevangenis is en is hy
deur die klerk van die strafhof gerekwiseer
vir verskyning op 13
February 2014.
U word derhalwe
respekvol versoek om die opgelegde vonnis tersyde te stel en na die
landdros terug te verwys vir die oorweging van
‘n gepaste
vonnis”.
[3] Section 112 (1)
(a) of the CPA reads as follows:
“
(1)
Where an accused at a summary trial in any court pleads guilty to the
offence charged, or to an offence of which he may be convicted
on the
charge and the prosecutor accepts that plea -a) The presiding judge
,
regional
magistrate or magistrate may, if he or she is of the opinion that the
offence does not merit punishment of imprisonment
or any other form
of detention without the option of a fine or of a fine exceeding the
amount determined in the Gazette, convict
the accused in respect of
the offence to which he or she has pleaded guilty on his or her plea
of guilty only and -
i) impose any
competent sentence, other than imprisonment or any other form of
detention without the option of a fine or a fine
exceeding the amount
determined by the Minister from time to time by notice in the
Gazette; or
ii) Deal with the
accused otherwise in accordance with law;”
[4] The magistrate,
Ms Du Preez correctly pointed out that the sentence imposed is not
competent as the fine is not in an amount
of money in accordance with
section 112(1) (a). I agree with Ms Du Preez’s submission.
[5]
In the circumstances, the accused’s sentence is set aside and
the matter is referred back to the court a
quo
for
the magistrate to impose a competent sentence in compliance with
section 112 (1) (a).
D. S. MOLEFE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
I agree.
M.G. PHATUDI
ACTING JUDGE OF
THE HIGH COURT