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
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZAGPPHC 238
|
|
S v Mbebe and Others (A278/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 238 (31 March 2009)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
NORTH PROVINCIAL DIVISION
HIGH
COURT REFERENCE NUMBER: 366/09
DATE:31/03/2009
CASE
NO:A278/09
In
the matter between:
THE
STATE
versus
SIZWE
MBEBE
…...........................................................................
First
Accused
FANA
DLAMINI
…............................................................................
Second
Accused
DANNY
XABA
...................................................................................
Third
Accused
REVIEW
JUDGMENT
1.
The facts of this case represent a sorry tale of administrative
bungling and unnecessary delays of a trial in the magistrate’s
court for the Nigel district, held at Nigel and transferred to Devon.
2.
The accused were, apparently, arrested as early as the 18th December
2007 near Devon.
3.
They were charged with the theft of copper cable to the value of R 15
000, 00.
4.
After a series of postponements, during which the accused first
indicated that they would conduct their own defence, and later
changed their mind, the trial started on the 10tth June 2008,
according to the submission by the senior magistrate who has sent
the
matter on special review in terms of section 304(4) of Act 51 of
1977.
5.
Further postponements followed after the accused pleaded not guilty
to the charge.
6.
From June 2008, the matter was postponed on at least eleven
occasions, with resultant inconvenience and waste of time and
resources
for all concerned. There were problems in obtaining legal
representation, in ensuring that the accused were at court, in
ensuring
that the docket was at court and finding a place on
overcrowded court rolls.
7.
It is clear that the many postponements of what appears to be a
simple and straightforward trial in which the principal witness
is an
accomplice who is already convicted, is unacceptable.
8.
Worse was to come, however, when the accused appeared on the 24th
February 2009 before another magistrate than the one before
whom the
accused appeared originally.
9.
For reasons that can only be explained on the basis of negligence,
the accused were asked to plead again to the charge that was
already
part-heard before another court. The plea proceedings that followed
are a nullity and need to be set aside.
10.
The proceedings under case number C 1215/08 are reviewed and set
aside.
Signed
at Pretoria on this 20th day of March 2009.
E
Bertelsmann
Judge
of the High Court
I
agree
D.A.
Basson
Judge
of the High Court.