S v Makutoane and Others (01/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 166; 2022 (2) SACR 589 (FB) (1 July 2022)

S v Makutoane and Others (01/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 166; 2022 (2) SACR 589 (FB) (1 July 2022)

The court found that the sentences imposed by the magistrate, ordering fines with alternative imprisonment to run concurrently, were incompetent under section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as concurrency applies only to imprisonment sentences. However, since the accused have already served their sentences, are foreign nationals with unknown addresses, and have likely been deported, it would not serve the interests of justice to set aside the sentences or require their return for resentencing. The court confirmed the convictions and amended the forfeiture order to reflect the correct statutory basis under section 21(1)(b) of the Precious Metals Act. The correction does not...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 166
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Mohau Makutoane; Respondent: Motlatsi Ramaoto; Respondent: Lerato Makutoane; Respondent: Tello Makutoane
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 July 2022
Case Number
01/2020
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Convictions confirmed; forfeiture order amended and confirmed.
Judges
N. Snellenburg, I. Van Rhyn
Legal Topics
Sentencing Concurrency, Precious Metals Act, Immigrations Act, Automatic Review, Forfeiture of Property
Criminal Law Sentencing Concurrency Precious Metals Act Immigrations Act Automatic Review Forfeiture of Property

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Mohau Makutoane

Respondent

Motlatsi Ramaoto

Respondent

Lerato Makutoane

Respondent

Tello Makutoane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was competent for the magistrate to order that sentences consisting of fines with alternative imprisonment run concurrently with other sentences.
  2. 2 Whether the forfeiture order regarding gold bearing material was made under the correct statutory provision.
  3. 3 Whether it is in the interests of justice to set aside or amend the sentences already served by the accused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the sentences imposed by the magistrate, ordering fines with alternative imprisonment to run concurrently, were incompetent under section 280(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as concurrency applies only to imprisonment sentences. However, since the accused have already served their sentences, are foreign nationals with unknown addresses, and have likely been deported, it would not serve the interests of justice to set aside the sentences or require their return for resentencing. The court confirmed the convictions and amended the forfeiture order to reflect the correct statutory basis under section 21(1)(b) of the Precious Metals Act. The correction does not...

Court Disposition

Convictions confirmed; forfeiture order amended and confirmed.

Orders

  • The convictions are confirmed.
  • The sentence, duly amended to read, 'In terms of section 21(1)(b) of Act 37 of 2005 gold bearing material is declared forfeited to the State', is confirmed.