S v Blomo (173/03) [2003] ZANWHC 58 (3 August 2003)
- Citation
- [2003] ZANWHC 58
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North West High Court, Mafikeng
- Panel
- R.D. Hendricks, H.N. Hendler
- Case number
- 173/03
More details
- Court
- North West High Court, Mafikeng
- Panel
- R.D. Hendricks, H.N. Hendler
- Case number
- 173/03
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court agreed with the magistrate that the omission of the suspension period rendered the sentence defective. The conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was set aside and replaced with a sentence specifying a four-year suspension period, conditional upon the accused not being convicted of contravening section 39(1)(L) of Act 75 of 1969 during the suspension period.
Court disposition
Conviction confirmed; sentence amended to specify a four-year suspension period.
Orders
- The conviction is confirmed.
- The original sentence is set aside and replaced with: 'Fined R600 or 6 months imprisonment, wholly suspended for four (4) years on condition that the accused is not again convicted of contravening section 39(1)(L) of Act 75 of 1969 committed during the period of suspension.'
02
Material facts
Parties
Die Staat
ApplicantAndries Blomo
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: ZAR 600
03
Procedural history
Posture
Special Review / Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the period of suspension was properly included in the sentence imposed by the magistrate.
- 02
Whether the sentence should be amended to specify the suspension period.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The magistrate submitted that the period of suspension was omitted from the sentence and recommended that it should be four years.
- Respondent
- No formal argument was presented by the respondent; the matter was considered on special review.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 39(1)(L) of Act 75 of 1969
A suspended sentence must specify the period of suspension to be valid.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court agreed with the magistrate that the omission of the suspension period rendered the sentence defective. The conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was set aside and replaced with a sentence specifying a four-year suspension period, conditional upon the accused not being convicted of contravening section 39(1)(L) of Act 75 of 1969 during the suspension period.
Court disposition
Conviction confirmed; sentence amended to specify a four-year suspension period.
- The conviction is confirmed.
- The original sentence is set aside and replaced with: 'Fined R600 or 6 months imprisonment, wholly suspended for four (4) years on condition that the accused is not again convicted of contravening section 39(1)(L) of Act 75 of 1969 committed during the period of suspension.'
Source and reliance status
North West High Court, Mafikeng
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Judgment
CA NO. 173/03
IN DIE HOÃRHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINSIALE AFDELING)
In die saak tussen:-
DIE
STAAT
TEEN
ANDRIES BLOMO
UITSPRAAK
Hier die saak het as ï spesiale hersiening voor my gekom. As rede vir die spesiale hersiening het die agbare landros van Coligny aangevoer dat die tydperk van opskorting nie ingesluit is as deel van die vonnis nie. Die vonnis lees as volg:-
âBeboet R600-00 of 6 maande gevangenisstraf, geheel opgeskort op voorwaarde dat beskuldigde nie skuldig bevind word aan oortreding van artikel 39 (1) (L) van Wet 75 van 1969 gepleeg gedurende die opskortingstermyn nieâ.
Die opskortingstermyn ontbreek egter. Die agbare Landros doen aan die hand dat die opskortingsteryn vier (4) jaar moet wees. Ek stem saam met die agbare Landros se submissie.
Derhalwe word die skuldigbevinding bekragtig en die opgelegde vonnis ter syde gestel en vervang met die volgende vonnis:-
âBeboet R600 of 6 maande gevangenisstraf, in geheel opgeskort vir vier (4) jaar op voorwaarde dat die beskuldigde nie weer skuldig bevind word aan oortreding van artikel 39 (1) (L) van Wet 75 van 1969 gepleeg gedurende die opskortuinstermyn nieâ.
R.D. HENDRICKS
WAARNEMENDE REGTER VAN DIE HOÃRHOF
GEDATEER: 02 OKTOBER 2003
H.N.
HENDLER
REGTER VAN DIE HOÃRHOF
H.N.
HENDLER
REGTER VAN DIE HOÃRHOF
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.