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
>>
2013
>>
[2013] ZAGPPHC 179
|
|
Inquest: Lechalaba (A473/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 179 (1 July 2013)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PRETORIA
Date:01/07/2013
High
Court Ref No.: 475
Magistrate’s
Serial No.: 2/2013
Case
No. SR/4/2013
Case
No: A473/2013
Inquest:
Nathaniel Lechalaba
INQUEST:
REVIEW JUDGMENT
A
A LOUW J:
[1]
The above inquest into the circumstances attending the death of
Nathaniel Lechalaba was held in the magistrate’s court,
Soshanguve on 30 Janaury 2013 in terms of section 6(a) of the Inquest
Act 58 of 1959.
[2]
This matter was referred to the review court as by the acting chief
magistrate, Pretoria North, as he is of the view that serious
mistakes/irregularities occurred. He had requested the Reviewing
Judge to set aside the decision of the magistrate as there were
gross
irregularities on the J56, particularly with regard to the identity
of the deceased and the failure to notify the next to
kin of the
deceased.
[3]
The matter was referred to the DPP for comment on the issue raised by
the acting senior magistrate. A helpful memorandum was
received.
[4]
Section 7 of the Inquests Act 58 of 1959 provides as follows:
“
Except
in cases where the spouse ora near adult relative of the alleged
deceased person is being subpoenaed as witness, the judicial
officer
who is to hold an inquest shall cause reasonable notice thereof to be
given to such spouse or relative, provided the spouse
or relative is
available and the giving of such notice will not, in the option of
the judicial officer, unduly delay the holding
of the inquest. ”
Section
16(2) of the Inquest Act 58 of 1959 also provides as follows:
“
The
judicial officer holding an inquest shall record a finding upon the
inquest-
(a)
As to the identity of the deceased person;
(b)
...
(c)
-As to the date of death. ”
[5]
The above sections impose a duty on the judicial officer to give
notice to the spouse or a relative of the deceased and to record
on
his findings the identity of the deceased and the date of death.
Failure to perform the above acts is a gross irregularity.
[6]
It appears from the J56 pro forma that the identity of the deceased,
the date of death and cause or likely cause of death were
not
recorded by the judicial officer who held the inquest. The identity
of the deceased and the date of death relate to the person
referred
to in the abridged death certificate (A7). This is not the deceased
in this matter but S.A. Metsileng. The identity of
the deceased in
this matter is Nathaniel Lechalaba as identified by his brother (A2).
The correct date of death is 5 August 2002.
[7]
The learned magistrate committed a gross irregularity by failing to
record the correct identity of the deceased, the correct
date of
death and informing the spouse or relative of the deceased about the
holding of the inquest.
In
terms of section 24(1) of the Supreme Court Act, as amended by Act 12
of 2004 and in terms of section 173 of the Constitution
of the
Republic of South Africa Act 106 of 1996, the High Court has inherent
powers to review proceedings where a gross irregularity
had occurred.
[8]
Therefore the findings of the judicial officer have to be set aside.
Order:
1.
The matter is remitted to the magistrate for reopening of the
inquest.
2.
That the spouse or next of kin of the deceased be notified.
3.
That the correct date of death and the identity of the deceased be
determined and entered on the J56.
A
A LOUW
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
I
agree
R
G TOLMAY
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT