S v Booi (175/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 164 (9 October 2014)
- Citation
- [2014] ZAFSHC 164
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A.F. Jordaan, M.H. Rampai
- Case number
- 175/2014
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A.F. Jordaan, M.H. Rampai
- Case number
- 175/2014
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
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
ApplicantMbongeni Booi
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the magistrate's order for reimbursement of the accused's travelling expenses under section 342A(3)(e) of Act 51 of 1977 was valid.
- 02
Whether section 342A(3)(e) of Act 51 of 1977 was operational at the time of the order.
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
Legal principles
- 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.
- 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.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
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
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.