Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

High Courts - Gauteng

S v Buisang (547/2005) [2005] ZAGPHC 359 (8 June 2005)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The magistrate imposed a fine of R2000, which exceeded the statutory maximum of R1500 under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The High Court, exercising its review powers, confirmed the conviction but set aside the sentence and substituted it with a lawful sentence of a fine of R1500 or three months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of any crime involving violence during the suspension period.

Court disposition

Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside and substituted with a lawful sentence.

Orders

  • The conviction of the accused is confirmed.
  • The sentence imposed by the magistrate on 26 April 2005 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The accused is sentenced to a fine of R1500 or three months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of any crime of which violence is an element committed during the period of suspension.

02

Material facts

Parties

The State

Applicant

Johannes Buisang

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine Imposed (original): ZAR 2,000
  • Fine Substituted: ZAR 1,500

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 State prosecuted the accused for assault. The Chief Magistrate highlighted that the fine imposed exceeded the statutory maximum permitted under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Respondent
The accused pleaded guilty to assault and was convicted. No substantive argument was advanced by the accused on review; the matter was referred due to the sentencing irregularity.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 112(1)(a)

    A sentence imposed under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act may not exceed the prescribed maximum penalty.

  2. 02

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

    Review powers allow the High Court to set aside and substitute sentences that are not in accordance with the law.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The magistrate imposed a fine of R2000, which exceeded the statutory maximum of R1500 under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The High Court, exercising its review powers, confirmed the conviction but set aside the sentence and substituted it with a lawful sentence of a fine of R1500 or three months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of any crime involving violence during the suspension period.

Obiter and limits

  • The enquiry under the Firearms Control Act was properly conducted and the accused was found fit to possess a firearm.
  • The review process serves to correct procedural and substantive errors in lower courts.

Court disposition

Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside and substituted with a lawful sentence.

  • The conviction of the accused is confirmed.
  • The sentence imposed by the magistrate on 26 April 2005 is reviewed and set aside.
  • The accused is sentenced to a fine of R1500 or three months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of any crime of which violence is an element committed during the period of suspension.

Source and reliance status

High Courts - Gauteng

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

High Courts - Gauteng

Judgment

[2005] ZAGPHC 359

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA( WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION )

Johannesburg

DATE: 08 / 06 / 2005

REVIEW CASE: HIGH COURT REF NO: 547/2005

MAGISTRATE’S SERIAL NO 39/2005

RANDBURG CASE NO: G484/05

In the matter between:

THE

STATE

and

JOHANNES

BUISANG

REVIEW

JUDGMENT

WILLIS J:

This matter has come before me by way of special review in terms of the provisions of section 304 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, No 51 of 1977, as amended (‘the Act”).

The accused had been charged in the Randburg Magistrate’s Court with having assaulted another person by kicking her with booted feet. The accused pleaded guilty and was convicted accordingly. He was sentenced to a fine of R2000 of five months’ imprisonment

suspended for three years on condition that he was not found guilty of assault committed during the period of suspension.

An enquiry was held in terms of the Firearms Control Act, No. 60 of 2000 and, as a result, the accused was not found unfit to possess a firearm.

The Chief Magistrate has drawn it to my attention that the fine exceeds the prescribed maximum penalty of R1500 in terms of section 112 (1) (a) of the Act.

I am pleased to remedy the error by way of review.

The following order is made:

The conviction of the accused is confirmed;

The sentence imposed by the learned magistrate on 26 April 2005 is reviewed and set aside;

The following order is issued in substitution thereof:

“The accused is sentenced to a fine of R1500- or three months’ imprisonment, which sentence is wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of any crime of which violence is an element committed during the period of suspension.”

DATED AT JOHANNESBURG THIS 8th DAY OF JUNE, 2005

N.P.WILLIS

JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT

I agree.

C.P.

RABIE

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

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000

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.