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
>>
2006
>>
[2006] ZAFSHC 62
|
|
S v Sephuka (1105/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 62 (14 December 2006)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF COURT SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE
FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Review
No. : 1105/2006
In
the review between:-
THE
STATE
and
ELIZABETH
SEPHUKA
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
H.M.
MUSI J
et
KRUGER J
_______________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
BY:
H.M. MUSI J
_______________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
14 DECEMBER 2006
_______________________________________________________
[1] This
is an automatic review emanating from the magistrateâs court at
Bultfontein. The accused, Ms Elizabeth Sephuka, featured
as accused
no. 2 in the trial. She was convicted of dealing in dagga in
contravention of the provisions of section 4(b) of Act 140
of 1992
and sentenced to a fine of R12 000,00 or 36 (thirty six) months
imprisonment.
[2] When the matter first
came before me on 2 October 2006 I addressed a query to the
magistrate in the following terms:
â
Is the sentence
of an option of a fine only imposed on Elizabeth Sephuka in
accordance with the law?â
In his
response, the magistrate concedes that direct imprisonment, whether
partly or wholly suspended, should have been part of the
sentence
imposed and that the sentence as it stands, is incompetent. See in
this regard
S v MOSOLOTSANE
1993 (1) SACR 502
(O).
[3] The
magistrate suggested that we either remit the matter to him or
substitute an appropriate sentence. I think that it is in
the
interest of justice that the accused be brought before court and be
heard before a new sentence is imposed. It may well be that
the
magistrate is persuaded to reduce the fine imposed in view thereof
that an additional punishment in the form of a suspended prison
term
will probably be imposed.
[4] In the premises, the
sentence imposed is set aside and the matter is remitted to the
magistrate to impose a competent sentence.
___________
H.M. MUSI, J
I concur.
____________
KRUGER,
J
/sp