IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Case Nr.: 12/2005
In the review between:
THE STATE
versus
MOJALEFA ERIC MOLEKO
_____________________________________________________
CORAM: HATTINGH, J et MATSEPE, AJ
_____________________________________________________
JUDGEMENT: MATSEPE, AJ
DELIVERED ON: 24 NOVEMBER 2005
_____________________________________________________
The accused herein was convicted on 2 counts of assault with intent
to do grievous bodily harm and sentenced as follows:
Count 1: R1 000,00 (one thousand rand) or 5 (five) months
imprisonment.
Count 2: R1 000,00 (one thousand rand) or 5 (five) months
imprisonment.
He was also declared unfit to possess a firearm in terms of Section
103(2) of Act 60 of 2000.
The matter came before this court for review and Judge G.A.
Hattingh refered it back to the magistrate who dealt with the matter
in the court a quo, with the following remarks:
1. Please furnish reasons for:
1.1 The convictions
1.2 The sentence.
2. Why were the convictions not taken together for purposes
of sentencing?
The magistrate provided reasons on the 21st October 2005.
The magistrates finding on the convictions is confirmed.
With regard to the reasons why the convictions were not taken
together for the purpose of sentence, his response is that such an
order is reflected on page 64 of the trial record but not on the J15
and J4.
The record reads as follows on page 64 to 65:
¡°You are sentenced to two thousand rand ((R2 000,00) or ten (10) months
imprisonment.
Put it the purpose of the sentence R1 000,00 each account R1 000,00 five
months, five months.”
2
The sentences are set aside and substituted with:
For the purpose of sentence, the two charges are taken as one and
the following sentence is imposed:
Payment of a fine of R2 000,00 (two thousand rand) or 10 (ten)
months imprisonment.
______________
V. MATSEPE, AJ
I concur.
________________
G.A. HATTINGH, J
/em
3