IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Review No. : 1360/2005
In the review between:
ISAAC MATHEBULA
and
THE STATE
CORAM: H.M. MUSI J et MATSEPE AJ
_____________________________________________________
JUDGMENT BY: MATSEPE AJ
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON: 03 November 2005
_____________________________________________________
The accused, Isaac Mathebula, was served with a summons to
appear in the magistrates court Winburg on 26 August 2005, on a
charge of negligent driving in contravention of the provisions of
section 63(1) read with section 1, 63(2), 63(3), 69, 73, 89(1) and
89(5) of the National Road Traffic Act, No. 93 of 1996, in that:
On 31 March 2004, on the N1 public road, in the district of
Winburg, he unlawfully drove a Toyota Cressida vehicle with
registration number DVC 383 GP recklessly or negligently. The
accused paid an admission of guilt fine of R3 000,00 on 12
September 2005, which fine was determined and fixed by the
prosecutor.
The admission of guilt as per form J175 was referred to the
magistrate for confirmation. The magistrate requested the
prosecutor to give reasons for the amount of the fine. The
prosecutor provided reasons to the magistrate on 15 September
2005 and stated as follows:
“Op 31 Maart 2005 om ongeveer 18h20 het beskuldigde met ‘n
Cressida motorkar teen ‘n ho ë spoed agter in ‘n ry stilstaande
voertuie vasgery. Die laaste voertuig in die ry was ‘n wit bakkie
en voor hom was ‘n Interlink. Dit het plaasgevind by ‘n
beheerde robot stop waar padwerke aan die gang was. Drie
voertuie is beskadig en drie persone was beseer. Die
ongelukstoneel is op ‘n lang reguit deel van die pad. Daar was
nie enige remmerke op die pad nie. Beskuldigde het nie
assuransie nie en beskik nie oor enige fondse om skade en/of
2
beserings te vergoed nie. Beskuldigde kan hom uiters gelukkig
ag dat geen persone in die ongeluk gesterf het nie. Die pad
gaan gebuk onder vele motorbotsings en padsterftes.
Beskuldigde was grof nalatig en na my mening sou ‘n redelike
hof nie ‘n ligter straf oplê nie.”
Thereafter the magistrate confirmed the admission of guilt.
The magistrate now refers the matter to this Court for special
review in terms of section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedures Act,
No. 51 of 1977, as she realised that the fine exceeds the
jurisdiction of the magistrates court of R1 500,00.
It has been held that a magistrate acting in terms of section 57(7)
of the Criminal Procedures Act, No. 51/1977, is exercising a
judicial review function and once he/she has decided to take the
steps set out therein, or declined to take them, he/she becomes
functus officio. If there is any corrective steps to be taken in
connection with such decision, only the High Court can do it and
hence the matter has to be referred to it for special review. See S
v COETZER 2002 (1) SACR 174 (TPD) and the authorities cited
3
there in .
In casu, the amount of the admission of guilt fine imposed,
exceeded the jurisdiction of the magistrates court and therefore
such court was not competent to impose or confirm it.
It stands to reason that the fine has to be set aside and replaced
with the amount falling within the jurisdiction of the magistrates
court, namely R1 500,00, in which event the balance of the R1
500,00 should be refunded to the accused.
The following order is made:
1. The fine of R3 000,00 is set aside and replaced with a fine of
R1 500,00.
2. The balance of R1 500,00 to be refunded to the accused.
______________
V. MATSEPE, AJ
I agree.
4
___________
H.M. MUSI, J
/sp
5