S v Mokwena (A728/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 311 (11 August 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] ZAGPPHC 311
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- W J van der Merwe, E M Makgoba
- Case number
- A728/09
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- W J van der Merwe, E M Makgoba
- Case number
- A728/09
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the absence of the presiding magistrate, who could not be located despite several postponements, rendered it impossible to continue the trial. The Criminal Procedure Act does not specifically provide for this scenario, but the accused's right to a speedy trial and to avoid undue prejudice is paramount. Setting aside the proceedings is necessary to protect the accused from further prejudice and indefinite uncertainty. The prosecution confirmed that a new trial would not be pursued, and the proceedings before the magistrate were set aside.
Court disposition
Proceedings before the magistrate are set aside; no new trial will be instituted.
Orders
- The proceedings in the partially heard trial before the magistrate are set aside.
- No further prosecution will be instituted against the accused in this matter.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantJohannes Samuel Mokwena
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused should be prejudiced by a further trial after the presiding magistrate could not be located.
- 02
Whether the proceedings before the magistrate should be set aside given the inability to continue the trial.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The prosecution, through the Director of Public Prosecutions, argued that since the presiding magistrate could not be located, the proceedings should be set aside. They acknowledged that the Criminal Procedure Act does not provide for this situation but emphasized the accused's right to a speedy trial and the prejudice caused by indefinite delays. The prosecution indicated that a new trial de novo would not be pursued and the prosecutor had been informed accordingly.
- Respondent
- The accused, represented by counsel, had previously experienced multiple postponements while his legal representative was present. The accused would suffer financial prejudice if the proceedings were set aside and a new trial commenced. The accused's right to a speedy trial and finality was emphasized.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
An accused is entitled to a speedy trial and should not be subject to indefinite delays or prejudice due to procedural irregularities.
- 02
Memorandum from the Director of Public Prosecutions
Where the presiding magistrate cannot be located and the trial cannot continue, the proceedings may be set aside to prevent prejudice to the accused.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the absence of the presiding magistrate, who could not be located despite several postponements, rendered it impossible to continue the trial. The Criminal Procedure Act does not specifically provide for this scenario, but the accused's right to a speedy trial and to avoid undue prejudice is paramount. Setting aside the proceedings is necessary to protect the accused from further prejudice and indefinite uncertainty. The prosecution confirmed that a new trial would not be pursued, and the proceedings before the magistrate were set aside.
Obiter and limits
- The court expressed gratitude for the helpful memorandum provided by advocates Meintjes SC and Cronje from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
- It was noted that the accused had already suffered multiple postponements and would be financially prejudiced if a new trial were to commence.
Court disposition
Proceedings before the magistrate are set aside; no new trial will be instituted.
- The proceedings in the partially heard trial before the magistrate are set aside.
- No further prosecution will be instituted against the accused in this matter.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
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.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
IN DIE HOé HOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(NOORD GAUTENG HOê HOF, PRETORIA)
A728/09
LANDDROS: BRITS
HOe HOF VERW NO: 916
HERSIENING SAAK NO: C542/08
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
DATE: 11 AUGUST 2009
IN DIE SAAK TUSSEN:
DIE STAAT
TEEN
JOHANNES SAMUEL MOKWENA………………………………………..BESKULDIGDE
HERSIENINGSUITSPRAAK
VAN DER MERWE. R
Die beskuldigde, 'n 43-jarige man, het in die landdroshof te Brits, tereg gestaar. op twee aanklagte naamlik 'n aanklag van oortreding van artikel 67(1) van Wet 68 van 1995 deurdat hy na bewering ingemeng het met die polisie in uitvoering van hulle pligte en tweedens op 'n aanklag van regsverydeling.
Op 20 Januarie 2009 het die beskuldigde onskuldig gepleit op die ten laste gelegde misdrywe. Die getuienis van een getuie is aangebied waarna die verhoor uitgestel is tot 30 Januarie 2009 vir die voortsetting daarvan. Op 30 Januarie 2009 is die saak verder uitgestel na 13 Februarie 2009 vir die regsverteenwoordiger van die beskuldigde. Die voorsittende beampte se aanstelling op 'n kontrak bas:s het egter rot ' n einde aekom op 31 Januarie 2009. Sedert 13 Februarie 2009 is die saak op verskeie geleenthede uitgestel na onder andere 19 Maart 2009, 30 Maart 2009 en 29 April 2009 ten einde die teenwoordigheid van die voorsittende beampte te verseker. Die voorsittende beampte kon egter nie opgespoor word nie en is die saak op 29 April 2009 uitgestel vir spesiale hersiening.
Die aangeleentheid dien tans voor my op spesiale hersiening. Toe die saak aanvanklik voor my geplaas is het ek dit na die Direkteur
van Openbare Vervolgings verwys met die volgende twee vrae:
”1.Waarom moet die beskuldigde benadeel word met 'n verdere verhoor?
2. Die landdros is seker nie dood nie en kar. gekontrakteer word {indien nodig) om die verhoor te voltooi."
'n Baie behulpsame memorandum is van advokate H M Meintjes SC en J Cronje van die personeel van die Direkteur van Openbare Vervolgings
ontvang waarvoor ek hulle bedank.
Die advokate wys tereg daarop dat Wet 51 van l977 nie voorsiening maak vir ' n geval soos die onderhawige nie. Dit is egter so dat 'n beskuldigde geregtig is op ‘n spoedige verhoor en dat dit in sy belang is om ‘n verhoor so spoedig moontlik af te handel en nie onbepaald oor sy kop te laat hang nie. Die beskuldigde was regsverteenwoordig en voor die verhoor ‘n aanvang geneem het was daar reeds 'n veeltal van uitstelle waar sy regsverteenwoordiger teenwoordig was. Indien al die verrigtinge nou tersyde gestel moet word sal die beskuldigde ook finansieel benadeel word indien 'n verhoor weer de novo moet begin.
Die verteenwoordigers van die Direkteur van Openbare Vervolgings is van mening dat, omdat die verhoor landdros nie opgespoor kan word nie, die verrigtinge tersyde gestel moet word. Alhoewel adv. Cronje aangedui het dat die Direkteur van Openbare Vervolgings kan besluit om de novo te begin al dan nie, het adv. Meintjes reeds die standpunt ingeneem dat daar nie 'n verhoor de novo sal plaasvind nie en is die aanklaer ook dien ooreenkomstig ingelig.
Die verrigtinge in die deels verhoorde verhoor voor die hof a quo word tersyde gestel.
W J VAN DER MERWE
Ek stem saam,
E.M. MAKGOBA
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.