S v Khambule (R07/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 77 (13 March 2020)
- Citation
- [2020] ZAFSHC 77
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- M A Mathebula, P E Molitsoane
- Case number
- R07/2020
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- M A Mathebula, P E Molitsoane
- Case number
- R07/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The conviction and sentence were set aside because the magistrate failed to address whether the traffic operator was competent to set up the speed measuring device and whether the calibration certificate was shown to the accused. These omissions constitute procedural irregularities, as the accused did not admit all elements of the offence. The court held that such irregularities undermine the validity of the conviction and sentence.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence reviewed and set aside.
Orders
- The conviction and sentence is reviewed and set aside.
02
Material facts
Parties
THE STATE
RespondentLULAMA KHAMBULE
ApplicantAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: ZAR 800
- Speed Recorded: 143
- Speed Limit: 100
- Distance Measured: 487.5
03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of Act 51 of 1977
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the conviction for speeding was valid in light of procedural irregularities.
- 02
Whether the accused admitted all elements of the offence, including the competency of the traffic operator and calibration of the speed measuring device.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The accused pleaded guilty and conducted his own defence. However, the record does not show that he was confronted with the calibration certificate or that the competency of the traffic operator was established. These omissions raise doubts about whether all elements of the offence were admitted.
- Respondent
- The State relied on the accused's guilty plea and the recorded speed, but did not address the procedural requirements regarding the speed measuring device's calibration or the operator's competency.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Phuzi 2018 ZAFHC 213 (28 December 2018)
A conviction for speeding requires proof that the accused admits all elements of the offence, including the proper calibration of the speed measuring device and the competency of the operator.
- 02
Section 304(4) of Act 51 of 1977
Review proceedings may set aside convictions marred by procedural irregularities, especially where the accused's admissions are incomplete.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The conviction and sentence were set aside because the magistrate failed to address whether the traffic operator was competent to set up the speed measuring device and whether the calibration certificate was shown to the accused. These omissions constitute procedural irregularities, as the accused did not admit all elements of the offence. The court held that such irregularities undermine the validity of the conviction and sentence.
Obiter and limits
- It is essential in traffic offences that the accused is confronted with all elements, including technical aspects such as calibration and operator competency.
- Routine checks of finalised cases are important to ensure procedural fairness and legality.
Court disposition
Conviction and sentence reviewed and set aside.
- The conviction and sentence is reviewed and 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 number: R07/2020
In the matter between:
THE
STATE
and
LULAMA
KHAMBULE
CORAM: MATHEBULA, J et MOLITSOANE, J
JUDGEMENT BY: MATHEBULA, J
DELIVERED ON: 13 MARCH 2020
[1] The matter came to court by way of special review in terms of Section 304(4) of Act 51 of 1977. The review proceedings were initiated by the Acting Additional Magistrate, D van Rooyen during the routine checks of finalised cases.
[2] The accused was charged with contravening Section 59(4)(c) read with section 59(1)(b), 69(1), 73 and 89(1) of Act 96 of 1996. He pleaded guilty to the charge and his sentence was a fine of eight hundred rands (R800) or two (2) months imprisonment. His drivers
license was not suspended. It is apposite to mention that he was recorded driving a motor vehicle on the R730 public road near
Odendaalsrus at 143 kilometres per hour. This was measured over a distance of 487.5 metres. The speed limit on this public road is 100 kilometres per hour.
[3] The accused conducted his own defence. The learned magistrate omitted to deal with the aspect relating to the competency of the traffic operator to set up the speed measuring device. The questions asked by the court also do not indicate that the calibration certificate of the device was shown to the accused. It must be ascertained that the accused admits the elements of the offence as per the judgment of the full bench in this division.[1] To that extent the conviction is marred with irregularities.
[4] I make the following order:-
4.1 The conviction and sentence is reviewed and set aside.
______
M. A. MATHEBULA, J
I concur
______
P. E. MOLITSOANE, J
[1] S v Phuzi 2018 ZAFHC 213 (28 December 2018)
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.