S v Dikgopo (44/05) [2005] ZANCHC 73 (1 January 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] ZANCHC 73
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Majiedt, Lacock
- Case number
- 44/05
More details
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Majiedt, Lacock
- Case number
- 44/05
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The accused's statement that he had cared for the child himself for two years is material and may constitute a complete defence to the charge of failing to pay maintenance. The magistrate was correct in referring the matter for special review, as section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not empower the court to correct a conviction based on evidence affecting the merits. The proper course is to set aside the conviction and remit the matter for a new hearing so that the proceedings can be conducted de novo, ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered.
Court disposition
Conviction set aside; matter remitted for new proceedings.
Orders
- The accused's conviction is set aside.
- The matter is referred back to the magistrate's court at Jan Kempdorp for proceedings de novo.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantJoseph Dikgopo
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused's conviction for failure to pay maintenance should stand in light of new evidence regarding custody of the child.
- 02
Whether the magistrate was empowered to correct a conviction based on evidence affecting the merits.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State prosecuted the accused for contravening section 31(1) of the Maintenance Act, 99 of 1998, for failure to pay maintenance. The accused pleaded guilty and was convicted after proper questioning under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977.
- Respondent
- During sentencing, the accused stated that he had cared for the child himself for the past two years, which could constitute a complete defence to the charge. The magistrate recognized this as material to the merits and referred the matter for special review.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Fisher and Another 1969 (2) SA 632 (A) at 636 A-B
A conviction based on evidence that materially affects the merits cannot be corrected by the magistrate under section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
- 02
Maintenance Act 99 of 1998; Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Where new evidence emerges that may constitute a complete defence, the conviction must be set aside and the matter remitted for a new hearing.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The accused's statement that he had cared for the child himself for two years is material and may constitute a complete defence to the charge of failing to pay maintenance. The magistrate was correct in referring the matter for special review, as section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not empower the court to correct a conviction based on evidence affecting the merits. The proper course is to set aside the conviction and remit the matter for a new hearing so that the proceedings can be conducted de novo, ensuring that all relevant evidence is considered.
Obiter and limits
- The magistrate acted appropriately in seeking guidance from the High Court when faced with evidence that could affect the merits of the case.
- The review procedure safeguards the rights of accused persons when new material facts arise after conviction.
Court disposition
Conviction set aside; matter remitted for new proceedings.
- The accused's conviction is set aside.
- The matter is referred back to the magistrate's court at Jan Kempdorp for proceedings de novo.
Source and reliance status
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
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.
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Judgment
Verslagwaardig: Ja / Nee
Sirkuleer aan Regters: Ja / Nee
Sirkuleer aan Landdroste: Ja / Nee
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(Noord-Kaapse Afdeling)
Hooggeregshof Hersieningsnr: 44\05
Landdros Saaknr: 893 \ 04
Datum gelewer:
In die hersieningsaak van:
DIE STAAT
versus
JOSEPH
DIKGOPO BESKULDIGDE
Coram: MAJIEDT R et LACOCK R
UITSPRAAK
OP SPESIALE HERSIENING
MAJIEDT R:
Die landdros te Jan Kempdorp het hierdie aangeleentheid voorgelê op spesiale hersiening. Dit blyk dat die beskuldigde aangekla was van ân oortreding van die bepalings vervat in artikel 31(1) van die Wet op Onderhoud, Wet 99 van 1998 (versuim om onderhoud te betaal). Die beskuldigde het skuldig gepleit aan die aanklag soos voormeld en nadat die Hof hom na behore ondervra het ingevolge die bepalings vervat in artikel 112(1)(b) van die Strafproseswet, 51 van 1977 (âdie Wetâ), is die beskuldigde aan die betrokke oortreding soos ten laste gelê skuldig bevind.
Terwyl die beskuldigde die Hof toegespreek het aangaande vonnis het die landdros by die beskuldigde verneem of die kind vir wie hy die onderhoud moes betaal in die sorg van die moeder verkeer het. Die beskuldigde het toe teenoor die landdros beweer dat hy vir die afgelope 2 jaar ononderbroke self na die betrokke kind omgesien het. Gevolglik is dit ân aspek wat wesenlik die skuldigbevinding mag beïnvloed, aangesien dit ân algehele verweer daar mag stel wat betref die ten laste gelegde misdryf.
Die landdros toon tereg aan dat die bepalings van artikel 176 van die Wet nie die Hof magtig om ân uitspraak wat berus op getuienis en wat die meriete affekteer reg te stel nie. Vergelyk: S v Fisher en ân ander 1969(2) SA 632 (A) te 636 A-B.Die enigste alternatief was gevolglik om die saak na hierdie Hof te verwys op spesiale hersiening sodat die aangeleentheid reggestel kan word.
Bygevolg word die beskuldigde se skuldigbevinding tersyde gestel en die aangeleentheid word na die landdroshof te Jan Kempdorp terugverwys sodat die verrigtinge de novo kan plaasvind.
___
SA MAJIEDT
REGTER
Ek stem saam:
HJ LACOCK
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.