S v Maneela and Another (411/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 16 (16 February 2012)
- Citation
- [2012] ZAFSHC 16
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- N.W. Phalatsi, B.C. Mocumie
- Case number
- 411/2011
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- N.W. Phalatsi, B.C. Mocumie
- Case number
- 411/2011
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The magistrate's order declaring the money found in the possession of the accused forfeited to the State was a material irregularity, as Section 35(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act only permits forfeiture of items used in the commission of the offence. The money was not used in the commission of the offences for which the accused were convicted. Therefore, the forfeiture order was set aside, but the sentences imposed for trespassing and immigration offences were confirmed.
Court disposition
The sentences imposed on the accused for trespassing and immigration offences are confirmed. The order declaring the money forfeited to the State is set aside.
Orders
- The sentences imposed on the accused for trespassing and immigration offences are confirmed.
- The order declaring the amount of R10,200 found in the possession of the accused forfeited to the State is set aside.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantThabo Maneela
DefendantTsietsi Thibela
DefendantAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed on Accused 1 for Trespassing (alternative to Count 1): ZAR 0
- Imprisonment Imposed on Accused 1 for Trespassing (months): ZAR 24
- Fine Imposed on Accused 2 for Trespassing (alternative to Count 1): ZAR 2,000
- Imprisonment Imposed on Accused 2 for Trespassing (months): ZAR 8
- Suspended Imprisonment Imposed on Accused 2 for Trespassing (months): ZAR 4
- Fine Imposed on Accused 1 for Immigration Offence (count 2): ZAR 1,000
- Imprisonment Imposed on Accused 1 for Immigration Offence (days): ZAR 90
- Fine Imposed on Accused 2 for Immigration Offence (count 2): ZAR 400
- Imprisonment Imposed on Accused 2 for Immigration Offence (days): ZAR 30
- Amount Declared Forfeited (set Aside): ZAR 10,200
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Review / Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the magistrate was entitled to declare the money found in the possession of the accused forfeited to the State.
- 02
Whether Section 35(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act applies to the money found in the accused's possession.
- 03
Whether the sentences imposed on the accused for trespassing and immigration offences were correct.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State did not provide any argument regarding the forfeiture of the money, as the review was initiated by the court's query to the magistrate.
- Respondent
- The magistrate conceded that the money was not used during the commission of the offences and that Section 35(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was not applicable.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 35(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977
A court may only declare forfeited to the State any weapon, instrument, or article used in the commission of the offence for which the accused was convicted.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The magistrate's order declaring the money found in the possession of the accused forfeited to the State was a material irregularity, as Section 35(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act only permits forfeiture of items used in the commission of the offence. The money was not used in the commission of the offences for which the accused were convicted. Therefore, the forfeiture order was set aside, but the sentences imposed for trespassing and immigration offences were confirmed.
Obiter and limits
- The court emphasized the importance of strictly adhering to statutory provisions when ordering forfeiture of property.
- The review process serves as a safeguard against material irregularities in criminal proceedings.
Court disposition
The sentences imposed on the accused for trespassing and immigration offences are confirmed. The order declaring the money forfeited to the State is set aside.
- The sentences imposed on the accused for trespassing and immigration offences are confirmed.
- The order declaring the amount of R10,200 found in the possession of the accused forfeited to the State is 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
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Review No. : 411/2011
In the review between:-
THE STATE
and
THABO MANEELA …............................................................Accused 1
TSIETSI THIBELA …..............................................................Accused 2
_____________
CORAM: MOCUMIE, J et PHALATSI, AJ
JUDGMENT BY: PHALATSI, AJ
DELIVERED ON: 16 FEBRUARY 2012
[1] This is a review in terms of Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 (“the CPA”).The two accused were charged with Count 1; attempted theft. In the alternative, they were charged with contravention of Section 1(1)(a) or (b), read with Section 1(1A), (2) and 2 of the Trespass Act, 6 of 1959 (“the Act”), trespassing; and further read with Section 250(1)(d) of the CPA. They were further charged with Count 2; contravention of Section 49 of the Immigration Act, 13 of 2002 (“the Immigration Act”), in that they unlawfully entered and remained in the country (Republic of South Africa), without a valid passport or permit.
[2] Both accused pleaded guilty on Count 2 and were convicted as charged. Evidence was led in respect of Count 1. They were acquitted on Count 1, but convicted on the alternative charge of trespassing. They were sentenced as follows (loosely translated):
“The alternative on Count 1 (trespassing), accused 1 was sentenced in terms of Section 276(1)(b) of the CPA to 24 (twenty four) months imprisonment. Accused 2 was sentenced to pay a fine of R2 000-00 (two thousand rand) or 8 (eight) months imprisonment and a further sentence of 4 months imprisonment, wholly suspended for four years, on condition that he is not found guilty of contravention of Section 1 (1) of Act 6 of 1959, committed during the period of suspension.
On Count 2, accused 1 was sentenced to pay a fine of R1 000-00 (one thousand rand) or 90 (ninety) days imprisonment. Accused 2 was sentenced to pay a fine of R400-00 (four hundred rand) or 30 (thirty) days imprisonment.
In addition to these sentences, an amount of R10 200-00 (ten thousand and two hundred rand), which was found in the possession of the accused during their arrest, was declared forfeited to the State.”
[3] As indicated, when this matter came to this Court on review, a query was directed to the magistrate, to indicate on what basis he declared the money found in the possession of the accused, forfeited to the State, as the money was not used during the commission of the offences for which the accused were convicted. The magistrate correctly conceded that the money was not used during the commission of the offences and thus s35 (1) of the CPA was not applicable in this case.
[4] Section 35(1) of the CPA provides as follows:
“A court which convicts an accused of any offence may, without notice to any person, declare-
(a) any weapon, instrument or other article by means whereof the offence in question was committed or which was used in the commission of such offence; or
(b) if the conviction is in respect of an offence referred to in Part 1 of Schedule 1, any vehicle, container or other article which was used for the purpose of or in connection with the commission of the offence in question or for the conveyance or removal of the stolen property, and which was seized under the provisions of this Act, forfeited to the State…”
[6] This is a material irregularity which vitiated the proceedings before the magistrate and which entitles this Court to interfere with the sentence in so far as the declaration in terms of s35(1) of the CPA is concerned.
[7] In the light of the above, the sentences in respect of the alternative to count 1 and in respect of count 2 imposed on the two accused by the magistrate are confirmed.
[8] The order of the magistrate declaring the amount of R10 200-00 (ten thousand and two hundred rand), which was found in the possession of the two accused during their arrest, forfeited to the State, is hereby set aside.
_____
N.W. PHALATSI, AJ
I concur.
___
B.C. MOCUMIE, J
/sp
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.