S v Jara (413/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 48 (12 May 2005)
- Citation
- [2005] ZAFSHC 48
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Ebrahim, Cillié
- Case number
- 413/2005
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Ebrahim, Cillié
- Case number
- 413/2005
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The sentence imposed by the magistrate was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 17E of Act 140/1992, which compels a sentence of imprisonment for dealing in dagga. The magistrate conceded the error, and the court set aside the original sentence and substituted it with a sentence that complies with the statutory requirements: eighteen months imprisonment wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening section 5(b) of Act 140/1992 during the suspension period, and a further fine of R5,000 or eighteen months imprisonment.
Court disposition
The original sentence is set aside and substituted with a competent sentence in accordance with the statute.
Orders
- The sentence imposed by the magistrate is set aside.
- The following sentence is substituted: Eighteen months imprisonment wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravention of section 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992 committed during the period of suspension and a further R5,000 or eighteen months imprisonment.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantSivuyile Sidwell Jara
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: ZAR 5,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Ordinary Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed for dealing in dagga complied with the mandatory requirements of section 17E of Act 140/1992.
- 02
Whether the sentence should be set aside and substituted with a competent sentence.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State did not make formal submissions but the review was initiated due to the improper sentence imposed by the magistrate, which did not comply with the mandatory imprisonment required by section 17E of Act 140/1992.
- Respondent
- The magistrate conceded that the sentence was not competent and agreed that it should be set aside and substituted with a proper sentence in accordance with the statute.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 17E, Abuse of Dependence Producing Substances Act 140 of 1992
Section 17E of Act 140/1992 requires that a sentence of imprisonment be imposed for an offence of dealing in dagga.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The sentence imposed by the magistrate was not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of section 17E of Act 140/1992, which compels a sentence of imprisonment for dealing in dagga. The magistrate conceded the error, and the court set aside the original sentence and substituted it with a sentence that complies with the statutory requirements: eighteen months imprisonment wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening section 5(b) of Act 140/1992 during the suspension period, and a further fine of R5,000 or eighteen months imprisonment.
Court disposition
The original sentence is set aside and substituted with a competent sentence in accordance with the statute.
- The sentence imposed by the magistrate is set aside.
- The following sentence is substituted: Eighteen months imprisonment wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravention of section 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992 committed during the period of suspension and a further R5,000 or eighteen months imprisonment.
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
(ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Review No. : 413/2005
In the review between:
THE
STATE
versus
SIVUYILE
SIDWELL JARA
_____________
CORAM: CILLIé J et
EBRAHIM J
JUDGEMENT: EBRAHIM
J
DELIVERED ON: 12 MAY 2005
[1] This matter was placed before me by way of ordinary review procedure.
[2] On consideration, it became apparent that the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate was improper in that it did not comply with the provisions of section 17E of Act 140/1992 - (The Abuse of Dependence Producing Substances Act 1992) which compels a sentence of imprisonment to be imposed on an offender convicted of the offence of dealing in dagga (section 5(b) of Act 40/1992).
[3] The learned magistrate has conceded that the sentence is not competent and that it ought to be set aside.
[4] It is accordingly ordered that the sentence imposed be set aside and substituted with the following sentence:
18 (Eighteen) months imprisonment wholly suspended for 3 (three) years on conditions that accused is not convicted of contravention of Section 5(b) Act 140 of 1992 committed during period of suspension and a further R5 000,00 (Five thousand Rand) or 18 (eighteen) months imprisonment.
_____
S. EBRAHIM, J
I concur.
____
C.B. CILLIé, J
/sp
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.