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
>>
2005
>>
[2005] ZAFSHC 45
|
|
S v Moloi (471/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 45 (5 May 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE
FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Review No. : 471/2005
In
the special review between:
THE
STATE
versus
MPE
ELIAS MOLOI
_____________________________________________________
CORAM:
MUSI
J
et
EBRAHIM
J
_____________________________________________________
JUDGMENT:
EBRAHIM
J
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED
ON:
5
MAY 2005
_____________________________________________________
[1] This matter has been
referred by way of special review under the following circumstances:
â
1.1 Accused
had been charged for a contravention section 59(4) read with
section
333
of the
National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996
, because he had
allegedly unlawfully while driving a motor vehicle on a public road
exceeded the speed limit of 60 kmh. The contravention
allegedly
occurred on the 24/07/2004 in our district. The accused was allowed
to pay admission of guilt fine of four hundred rand
(R400.00) which
he was unable to pay before the trial date of 28/09/2004.
1.2 The
accused appeared before the court on the trial date and required a
remand of the matter to raise the admission of guilty fine.
The
matter was then remanded on his request until the 29/10/04. He
however failed to appear before court and a warrant of arrest
was
authorised against him.
1.3 On the 24/02/05 the accused
appeared by a warrant of arrest before the court. It then came to
the notice of the court that the
accused had paid a reduced admission
of guilt fine of Two hundred rand (200.00) to the clerk of court
according to the traffic case
record in Case no 1951/04 on the
10/01/04. The checking magistrate had on 11/01/05 mistakenly thought
that it was indeed a reduced
fine while, in fact the Two hundred rand
had been paid in respect of another case against the accused i.e.
Case no Cc 268/04 which
was an assault charge against accused. Both
case records have been attached for your attention.
1.4 The checking magistrate had then
in error confirmed the reduced admission of guilt fine because only
the form referred to as âBylae
Aâ had been placed before him for
checking with the record of Case no DT 1951/04. The Bylae A should
have been separately attached
and filed with Case no Cc 268/04 and
never placed before magistrate with the record of Case no 1951/04.
We sincerely regret this
error.â
[2] On the basis of the
above the magistrate before whom the accused appeared erroneously
accepted that the accused had indeed paid
an admission of guilt fine
and disposed of the matter by endorsing the document accordingly
whereas the admission guilt fine was
paid in respect of another
matter.
[3] The proceedings have
clearly not been conducted in accordance with justice and must be set
aside.
[4] The following order
is made:
The proceedings in Case
No DT 1951/04 are set aside.
The matter under Case No
DT 1951/04 is remitted to the magistratesâ court for consideration
afresh and for retrial.
_____________
S. EBRAHIM, J
I
concur.
___________
H.M. MUSI, J
/sp