About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZAFSHC 235
|
|
S v Seleke and Another (455/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 235 (13 December 2012)
FREE STATE HIGH
COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Review No. : 455/2012
In the review between:-
THE STATE
and
KABELO ABEL SELEKE
........................................................
Accused
1
NORMAN NCHERE
MATJIANE
.............................................
Accused
2
_____________________________________________________
CORAM:
MOLOI, J
et
MATLAPENG, AJ
_____________________________________________________
JUDGMENT BY:
MATLAPENG, AJ
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
13 DECEMBER 2012
_____________________________________________________
[1]
The matter came before this court by way of review. Attached to the
record of proceedings is a letter from the trial magistrate
with a
request that the sentence that she imposed be amended.
[2]
The two accused appeared before the magistrate charged with assault.
At the conclusion of the trial they were both convicted
as charged
and sentenced. I do not have any qualms that they were properly
convicted and sentenced. The proceedings appear to me
to be in
accordance with justice. If anything can be said is that the learned
magistrate was thorough especially with the explanations
that she
gave to the accused on how to conduct the trial. This has to be
commended.
[3]
In sentencing the accused the record reads as follows:
“
On
21/11/2012 each accused: Sentenced in terms of section 297(1)(i) of
Act 51/1977 to eighteen (18) months imprisonment.”
The
request by the magistrate for amendment is directed at the first part
of the sentence where it refers to s297(1)(i) of Act 51
of 1977.
[4]
In terms of
s298
of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
, when by
mistake a wrong sentence is passed, the court may immediately after
it is recorded amend the sentence. This usually means
that the
correction has to take place within a reasonable time as the court
becomes
functus officio
after imposing a sentence and it
normally cannot change a sentence that it imposed after a lapse of
time.
[5]
In this matter it is clear that the sentence imposed by the
magistrate contains a technical fault. It is clear that the learned
magistrate intended to sentence the two accused in terms of
s276(1)(i)
of the
Criminal Procedure Act to
18 (eighteen) months
imprisonment. However, the section was rendered as
s297(1)(i)
and
clearly this is wrong as there is no
s297(1)(i)
in the
Criminal
Procedure Act. I
am of the view that there will be no prejudice to
the accused if the sentence is corrected.
[6]
In the circumstances I make the following order:
1.
The conviction and sentence are confirmed.
2.
The sentence imposed by the magistrate is corrected to read:
Each
accused is sentenced in terms of
s276(1)(i)
of the
Criminal Procedure
Act 51 of 1977
to 18 (eighteen) months imprisonment.
The
correction is antedated to 21 November 2012.
__________________
D.I.
MATLAPENG, AJ
I
concur and it is so ordered.
____________
K.J. MOLOI, J
/spieterse