Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

S v Mhlophe (245/2015) [2015] ZAFSHC 232 (10 December 2015)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that an alternative count is mutually exclusive to the main count; an accused may only be convicted on one, not both. The magistrate's conviction and sentence on both the main and alternative charges arising from the same facts were irregular and constituted double punishment, which is impermissible under South African criminal law. Furthermore, as the record of evidence could not be reconstructed, the court was unable to assess whether guilt was established on either charge. Consequently, both the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Court disposition

Conviction and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence are set aside.

02

Material facts

Parties

The State

Applicant

Deamane Gollet Mhlophe

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Fine Imposed: ZAR 4,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of Act 51 of 1977

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Senior Magistrate Welkom argued that the accused cannot be convicted on both the main and alternative counts on the same set of facts, referencing S v Grobler en 'n Ander 1966 (1) SA 507 (A) at 522E-F, and requested that the conviction and sentence be set aside.
Respondent
The accused was defended and pleaded not guilty to both the main and alternative charges. No further substantive argument from the respondent is recorded due to the inability to reconstruct the record of evidence.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    S v Grobler en 'n Ander 1966 (1) SA 507 (A) at 522B-C

    If an accused's act brings him within the ambit of two penal statutory provisions, he is not to be punished twice for the same act.

  2. 02

    Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, section 83

    Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 allows for alternative charges when there is doubt as to the facts or legal position, but conviction must be on either the main or alternative charge, not both.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that an alternative count is mutually exclusive to the main count; an accused may only be convicted on one, not both. The magistrate's conviction and sentence on both the main and alternative charges arising from the same facts were irregular and constituted double punishment, which is impermissible under South African criminal law. Furthermore, as the record of evidence could not be reconstructed, the court was unable to assess whether guilt was established on either charge. Consequently, both the conviction and sentence were set aside.

Obiter and limits

  • The concept of 'alternative' in law denotes mutually exclusive possibilities; acceptance of one excludes the other.
  • The inability to reconstruct the record of evidence precludes any assessment of guilt on the charges.

Court disposition

Conviction and sentence set aside.

  • The conviction and sentence are 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.

Source document

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Judgment

[2015] ZAFSHC 232

FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN

REPUBLIC

OF SOUTH AFRICA

Review No: 245/2015

In the review of:

THE

STATE

and

DEAMANE

GOLLET MHLOPHE

CORAM:

MOLEMELA JP et KRUGER,

J

JUDGMENT BY: KRUGER,

J

DELIVERED ON: 10 DECEMBER 2015

[1] This matter was sent on special review in terms of section 304(4) of Act 51 of 1977. The accused was charged with a contravention of section 63(1) of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996, reckless or negligent driving, alternatively of a contravention of section 64 of Act 93 of 1996, inconsiderate driving. Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides:

“Charge where it is doubtful what offence committed

If by reason of any uncertainty as to the facts which can be proved or if for any other reason it is doubtful which of several offences is constituted by the facts which can be proved, the accused may be charged with the commission of all or any of such offences, and any number of such charges may be tried at once, or the accused may be charged in the alternative with the commission of any number of such offences.”

(My underlining)

When the prosecution is in doubt as to the facts the state can prove or as to the legal position, charges are put in the alternative, as permitted in section 83. The court then convicts on the charge that in its view suits the proven facts best.

[2] The accused was defended and pleaded not guilty to both the main and alternative charge. According to the magistrate’s

judgment the evidence showed that the accused drove through a stop street and collided with the complaint’s vehicle which was driven by police officers. The magistrate found that the accused should have stopped and allowed the intersection to clear before he moved forward. At the end of the judgment the magistrate says:

“You are hereby found guilty on both count 1 and 2, on both count 1 and the alternative count.”

[3] In passing sentence the magistrate said:

“Also looking at the fact the offences for which I have found you guilty they arise out of the same facts, the same cause of action, in imposing sentence count one and the alternative count will be taken together for purposes of sentencing.”

He was sentenced to a fine of R4 000.00 or six months imprisonment, half of which was suspended for three years. The court decided not to suspend the accused’s driver’s licence.

[4] The Senior Magistrate Welkom says the accused cannot be convicted on both the main and alternative counts on the same set of facts, with reference to S v Grobler en ‘n Ander 1966 (1) SA 507 (A) at 522E-F, and asks that the conviction and sentence be set aside. If an accused’s act brings him within the ambit of two penal statutory provisions he is not to be punished twice for the same act (Grobler at 522B-C)

[5] When one refers to alternative in relation to two things, they are mutually exclusive (Concise Oxford Dictionary). The theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said “The weak always have to decide between alternatives that are not their own”.

The diplomat Abba Eban said, “History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have exhausted all other alternatives”. An alternative is a substitute or a replacement (Oxford Thesaurus of English). An alternative is the choice between two mutually exclusive possibilities (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). It is one or the other, not both. The traditional view is that the choice is between two because “alter” means “the other (of two)”. The acceptance of one involves the rejection of the other (Fowler’s Modern English Usage 3rd Ed. (2004)).

[6] An alternative count is exactly what it is called, alternative. An accused can be convicted either on the main count or on the alternative count, not on both as the magistrate did here. The conviction and sentence were irregular.

[7] It has not been possible to reconstruct the record of the evidence led. Thus it is not possible to assess whether the guilt of the accused on one charge was established.

ORDER

The conviction and sentence are set aside..

____

A. KRUGER, J

I agree.

______

M.B. MOLEMELA, JP

/wm

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

S v Grobler en 'n Ander 1966 (1) SA 507 (A)

Case cited

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.