S v Mathabatha (SR146/04) [2004] ZAFSHC 99 (4 November 2004)
- Citation
- [2004] ZAFSHC 99
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Van Coppenhagen, Wright
- Case number
- SR146/04
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Van Coppenhagen, Wright
- Case number
- SR146/04
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that, due to the original magistrate's incapacity, the proceedings cannot continue before him. There are two schools of thought: one permits continuation de novo before another magistrate without a formal order, while the other requires the proceedings to be set aside by way of review, with a directive for a new trial if appropriate. The court adopted the latter approach, setting aside the proceedings and ordering that, should the Director of Public Prosecutions deem it appropriate, the accused may be prosecuted de novo before a different magistrate.
Court disposition
Proceedings before the original magistrate are set aside; the accused may be prosecuted de novo before another magistrate if the Director of Public Prosecutions considers it appropriate.
Orders
- The proceedings in case number B1890/02 in the Sasolburg Magistrate's Court are set aside to enable, if deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Prosecutions, prosecution de novo of the accused.
- Any such proceedings must be conducted before a different magistrate.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantPhineas Mathabatha
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Review of Criminal Proceedings After Magistrate Incapacitation
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether criminal proceedings may continue before a new magistrate after the original magistrate is incapacitated.
- 02
Whether the prior proceedings must be set aside and a de novo trial ordered.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State contends that, following the incapacitation of the presiding magistrate, the proceedings should be set aside and, if deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Prosecutions, a new trial should commence before another magistrate.
- Respondent
- The accused did not advance substantive argument, as the matter concerns procedural regularity following the magistrate's incapacity.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v De Koker 1978 (1) SA 659 (O)
Where a presiding magistrate becomes incapacitated and cannot continue with proceedings, the proceedings may be set aside and, if appropriate, commenced de novo before another magistrate.
- 02
S v Lapping 1998 (1) ALL SA 331
In circumstances where proceedings cannot continue before the original magistrate, it is proper for the proceedings to be set aside and a directive issued for a de novo trial before another magistrate if necessary.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that, due to the original magistrate's incapacity, the proceedings cannot continue before him. There are two schools of thought: one permits continuation de novo before another magistrate without a formal order, while the other requires the proceedings to be set aside by way of review, with a directive for a new trial if appropriate. The court adopted the latter approach, setting aside the proceedings and ordering that, should the Director of Public Prosecutions deem it appropriate, the accused may be prosecuted de novo before a different magistrate.
Obiter and limits
- Regardless of which approach is adopted, the proceedings cannot continue before the original magistrate and must commence anew if the prosecution so decides.
Court disposition
Proceedings before the original magistrate are set aside; the accused may be prosecuted de novo before another magistrate if the Director of Public Prosecutions considers it appropriate.
- The proceedings in case number B1890/02 in the Sasolburg Magistrate's Court are set aside to enable, if deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Prosecutions, prosecution de novo of the accused.
- Any such proceedings must be conducted before a different magistrate.
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 DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(ORANJE VRYSTAATSE PROVINSIALE AFDELING)
Hersiening Nr.: SR146/04
In die hersiening van:
DIE STAAT
versus
PHINEAS MATHABATHA
_____________
CORAM: VAN COPPENHAGEN R et
WRIGHT R
UITSPRAAK: VAN
COPPENHAGEN R
GELEWER OP: 4 NOVEMBER 2004
[1] Die beskuldigde, ân 46-jarige man, staan in die landdroshof Sasolburg tereg op ân klagte dat hy artikel 17(a) van die Wet op Gesinsgeweld Wet 116 van 1988/1998 oortree het deurdat hy die bepalings van ân bevel wat verleen was nie nagekom het nie of verbreek het.
[2] Op die klagte hom ten laste gelê, het die beskuldigde op 28 Oktober 2002 onskuldig gepleit en het die verrigtinge ân aanvang geneem deurdat een staatsgetuie reeds getuig het.
[3] Die landdros wat die saak verhoor het, was egter daarna weens gesondheidsredes ongeskik verklaar en is van enige diens onthef.
Feit is dus dat die betrokke landdros nie met die verrigtinge kan voortgaan nie.
[4] In omstandighede soos die onderhawige, geld twee skole van gedagtes:
Die eerste skool van gedagte is van mening dat die verrigtinge sonder enige bevel de novo voor ân ander landdros voortgesit kan word. [Vergelyk STAAT v DE KOKER 1978 (1) SA 659 (O)] terwyl die tweede skool van gedagte is dat die verrigtinge vernietig moet word en ân bevel by wyse van hersiening verkry moet word wat die verrigtinge vernietig met ân lasgewing dat indien gepas die saak de novo voor ân ander landdros verhoor moet word. [Vergelyk S v LAPPING 1998 (1) ALL SA p. 331 par. 5.] Wat ookal die posisie, feit is dat die verrigtinge nie voor die landdros wat met die verriginge begin het, voortgesit kan word nie en wel sou die Direkteur van Openbare Vervolging so dit gerade ag, de novo voor ân ander landdros moet begin.
[5] Die volgende bevel word gemaak:
(i) Die verrigtinge in saaknommer B1890/02 in die landdros Sasolburg word tersyde gestel om indien die Direkteur van Openbare Vervolging dit gerade ag, die beskuldigde de novo te vervolg.
(ii) Sodanige verriginge moet voor ân ander landdros geskied.
_______
G. VAN COPPENHAGEN, R
EK STEM SAAM:
______
G.F. WRIGHT, R
/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.