S v Makwala (B391/2016) [2017] ZALMPPHC 9 (22 May 2017)

S v Makwala (B391/2016) [2017] ZALMPPHC 9 (22 May 2017)

The district magistrate court retains jurisdiction to try charges of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, even where the complainant is under 16 years and a dangerous weapon is alleged to have been used. The minimum sentencing provisions of section 51(2)(b) of Act 105 of 1997 do not deprive the district court of trial jurisdiction; they only affect sentencing jurisdiction after conviction. If, after conviction, the magistrate considers the offence merits punishment beyond its jurisdiction, section 116(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires the matter to be referred to the regional court for sentencing. The trial magistrate erred in stopping proceedings before conviction...

Citation
[2017] ZALMPPHC 9
Parties
Applicant: THE STATE; Respondent: Molate Peter Makwala
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2017
Case Number
B391/2016
Procedural Posture
Special Review / Review Initiated by Trial Magistrate Before Conviction or Sentence
Outcome
The district magistrate court Nkowankowa has jurisdiction to try the accused; the matter is remitted to the district magistrate court to proceed with the trial.
Judges
M.F KGANYAGO
Legal Topics
Magistrates Court Jurisdiction, Minimum Sentencing Legislation, Supervisory Review, Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Magistrates Court Jurisdiction Minimum Sentencing Legislation Supervisory Review Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE STATE

Applicant

Molate Peter Makwala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Review / Review Initiated by Trial Magistrate Before Conviction or Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the district magistrate court have jurisdiction to try a charge of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm where the complainant is under 16 years and a dangerous weapon was allegedly used.
  2. 2 Is it appropriate for the trial magistrate to stop proceedings before conviction based on perceived lack of jurisdiction under section 51(2)(b) of Act 105 of 1997.
  3. 3 What is the correct procedure when the sentencing jurisdiction of the district court may be exceeded after conviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The district magistrate court retains jurisdiction to try charges of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, even where the complainant is under 16 years and a dangerous weapon is alleged to have been used. The minimum sentencing provisions of section 51(2)(b) of Act 105 of 1997 do not deprive the district court of trial jurisdiction; they only affect sentencing jurisdiction after conviction. If, after conviction, the magistrate considers the offence merits punishment beyond its jurisdiction, section 116(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires the matter to be referred to the regional court for sentencing. The trial magistrate erred in stopping proceedings before conviction...

Court Disposition

The district magistrate court Nkowankowa has jurisdiction to try the accused; the matter is remitted to the district magistrate court to proceed with the trial.

Orders

  • The district magistrate court Nkowankowa has jurisdiction to try the accused in this matter.
  • The matter is remitted to the district magistrate court Nkowankowa to proceed with the trial where it has stopped.