Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

S v Booi (175/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 164 (9 October 2014)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The order made by the trial magistrate for the State to reimburse the accused's travelling expenses was invalid because section 342A(3)(e) of Act 51 of 1977 had not yet been put into operation. The review court, therefore, set aside the order as it was made without legal authority.

Court disposition

Order of reimbursement set aside.

Orders

  • The order made by the trial court in terms of section 342A(3)(e) of Act 51 of 1977 is set aside.

02

Material facts

Parties

The State

Applicant

Mbongeni Booi

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The control magistrate submitted that the order made by the trial magistrate was invalid because section 342A(3)(e) of Act 51 of 1977 had not yet been put into operation.
Respondent
The defence applied for reimbursement of the accused's travelling expenses under section 342A(3)(e), which was granted by the trial magistrate.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 342A(3)(e)

    A magistrate cannot make an order under a statutory provision that has not yet been put into operation.

  2. 02

    Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 304(4)

    Review courts may set aside orders made without legal authority.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The order made by the trial magistrate for the State to reimburse the accused's travelling expenses was invalid because section 342A(3)(e) of Act 51 of 1977 had not yet been put into operation. The review court, therefore, set aside the order as it was made without legal authority.

Obiter and limits

  • The control magistrate was correct in submitting that the order was invalid due to the statutory provision not being operational.

Court disposition

Order of reimbursement set aside.

  • The order made by the trial court in terms of section 342A(3)(e) of Act 51 of 1977 is set aside.

Source and reliance status

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

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.

Source document

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Judgment

[2014] ZAFSHC 164

IN THE HIGH COURT

OF SOUTH AFRICA

FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN

Review No. : 175/2014

DATE: 09 OCTOBER 2014

In the review between:-

THE STATE

Versus

MBONGENI BOOI

CORAM: RAMPAI, AJP et JORDAAN, J

JUDGMENT BY: JORDAAN, J

DELIVERED ON: 9 OCTOBER 2014

[1] In this matter the accused was charged with and arraigned for trial on a charge of reckless or negligent driving. The matter was continuously postponed, because of the non-availability of the police docket and eventually struck off the roll.

[2] When the matter was struck off the roll the defence moved for an order in terms of section 342A(3)(e) of Act 51 of 1977 for the State to reimburse the accused his travelling expenses to attend the case, which application was granted by the trial magistrate.

[3] When this matter came to the attention of the district control magistrate for criminal courts in Bloemfontein it was sent through to this court for a special review in terms of section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977.

[4] The learned control magistrate remarks as follows:

“It is submitted that the magistrate made an invalid order in that section 342A(3)(e) of Act 51/1977 has not yet been put into operation.”

[5] It is therefore asked that the order made by the trial magistrate in terms of the last-mentioned section be set aside. The control magistrate is undoubtedly correct.

[6] In the result the order made by the trial court in terms of section 342A(3)(e) of Act 51 of 1977 is set aside.

A.F. JORDAAN, J

I concur.

M.H. RAMPAI, AJP

spieterse

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 342A(3)(e)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 304(4)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.