S v Jwara (A841/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 890 (12 November 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 890
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- H.J Fabricius, J.J Strijdom
- Case number
- A841/2015
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- H.J Fabricius, J.J Strijdom
- Case number
- A841/2015
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that it is competent for a court to order that a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine may run concurrently with a sentence of a fine with alternative imprisonment, but only the imprisonment portion can run concurrently. The concurrency order must specify that sentences will run concurrently only if the imprisonment is served. The previous order was set aside and replaced to clarify that the 12 months imprisonment imposed in the current matter will run concurrently with the sentence imposed in case C1340/14, but only if the fine in that case is not paid and imprisonment is served.
Court disposition
The sentence imposed by the magistrate is set aside and replaced with a clarified order regarding concurrency.
Orders
- The sentence is set aside and replaced with twelve (12) months imprisonment.
- This sentence will run concurrently with the sentence imposed in case C1340/14, only if the fine in that case is not paid and imprisonment is served.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantBulelani Jwara
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed (previous Sentence): ZAR 5,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed was in accordance with justice.
- 02
Whether a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine may run concurrently with a sentence of a fine with alternative imprisonment under section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
- 03
Whether the concurrency order was correctly formulated given the accused's parole status.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The acting Senior Magistrate submitted the case for special review, contending that the sentence imposed was not in accordance with justice, particularly regarding the concurrency of sentences and the accused's parole status.
- Respondent
- The accused was sentenced to imprisonment for contravening section 4(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992, with the prosecutor informing the court that parole had been revoked and the accused was serving a previous sentence. No further argument from the accused is recorded.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
A court may direct that a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine may run concurrently with a sentence of a fine with alternative imprisonment under section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
- 02
S v Hatton 1998 (2) SACR 474 ECD
Only the imprisonment portion of a sentence with an alternative fine may run concurrently with another sentence of imprisonment; concurrency applies only if the imprisonment is served.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that it is competent for a court to order that a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine may run concurrently with a sentence of a fine with alternative imprisonment, but only the imprisonment portion can run concurrently. The concurrency order must specify that sentences will run concurrently only if the imprisonment is served. The previous order was set aside and replaced to clarify that the 12 months imprisonment imposed in the current matter will run concurrently with the sentence imposed in case C1340/14, but only if the fine in that case is not paid and imprisonment is served.
Obiter and limits
- The court emphasized the importance of clarity in concurrency orders, especially where sentences involve alternative fines and imprisonment.
- The court noted the procedural irregularity in the original sentencing and the necessity for judicial oversight in such matters.
Court disposition
The sentence imposed by the magistrate is set aside and replaced with a clarified order regarding concurrency.
- The sentence is set aside and replaced with twelve (12) months imprisonment.
- This sentence will run concurrently with the sentence imposed in case C1340/14, only if the fine in that case is not paid and imprisonment is served.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: A841/2015
DATE: 12 NOVEMBER 2015
In the matter between:
THE STATE
VS
BULELANI JWARA
Review Case Number: 575/1 C92U/15
REVIEW JUDGMENT
Fabricius J,
The acting Senior Magistrate of Springs has submitted this case on special review on the grounds that the sentence is not in accordance with justice.
On k February 2015, in case C13U0/1U, the accused was sentenced on one count of contravention of section 4 (b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 to a fine of R 5000 or 12 months imprisonment.
On 21 May 2015 the accused was released on parole and placed under correctional supervision.
On 29 September 2015, in case C92*+/15, the accused was sentenced on one count of contravention of section 4 (b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992to 12 months imprisonment. It was ordered in terms of section 280 (2) of Act 51 of 1977 that the 12 months imprisonment must be served concurrently with any other sentences.
During the sentencing process the prosecutor informed the Court that the accused was released on parole but his parole was revoked and he is currently serving his sentence imposed on U February 2015.
In my view it is competent for a Court to direct that a sentence of imprisonment without the option of a fine may run concurrently with a sentence of a fine with alternative imprisonment in terms of section 280 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.
See: S v Hatton 1998 (2) SACR 474 ECD.
It is, however, only the imprisonment option in the sentence that can run concurrently and the Court wishing to order concurrency in such a case must ensure that it states that the sentences will run concurrently only if the imprisonment is served.
The order that is made is the following:
The sentence is set aside and replaced with the following:
1. Twelve (12) months imprisonment;
2. The Court orders that this sentence run concurrently with the sentence imposed in case C1340/14, if this fine is not paid.
JUDGE H.J FABRICIUS
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG
DIVISION PRETORIA
And I Agree
JUDGE J. J. STRIJDOM
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA
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.