S v Makoko and Another (191/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 75 (26 June 2008)

S v Makoko and Another (191/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 75 (26 June 2008)

The court found that the presiding officer erred in convicting accused 2 on count 2, as the plea was not tendered for that count and the prosecutor accepted the plea only for count 1. The conviction on count 2 for accused 2 was therefore set aside. The convictions and sentences for accused 1 on both counts and for accused 2 on count 1 were confirmed, as the pleas and admissions covered all elements of the offences and were accepted by the prosecutor. The review was necessary to correct the procedural oversight and ensure that convictions are based on proper pleas and admissions.

Citation
[2008] ZAFSHC 75
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Rasetshego Makoko; Respondent: Another
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 June 2008
Case Number
191/2008
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review
Outcome
Conviction on count 2 for accused 2 set aside; convictions and sentences for accused 1 on both counts and accused 2 on count 1 confirmed.
Judges
H. M. Musi, Mocumie
Legal Topics
Robbery, Plea and Conviction, Section 112 Criminal Procedure Act, Review Proceedings
Criminal Law Robbery Plea and Conviction Section 112 Criminal Procedure Act Review Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Rasetshego Makoko

Respondent

Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction of accused 2 on count 2 was correct given the plea and admissions.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions and sentences imposed on accused 1 and accused 2 were in accordance with the law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the presiding officer erred in convicting accused 2 on count 2, as the plea was not tendered for that count and the prosecutor accepted the plea only for count 1. The conviction on count 2 for accused 2 was therefore set aside. The convictions and sentences for accused 1 on both counts and for accused 2 on count 1 were confirmed, as the pleas and admissions covered all elements of the offences and were accepted by the prosecutor. The review was necessary to correct the procedural oversight and ensure that convictions are based on proper pleas and admissions.

Court Disposition

Conviction on count 2 for accused 2 set aside; convictions and sentences for accused 1 on both counts and accused 2 on count 1 confirmed.

Orders

  • The conviction in respect of count 2 in respect of accused 2 is set aside.
  • The conviction and sentence in respect of count 1 in respect of accused 2 are confirmed.