S v Motake (R25/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 37 (15 March 2018)
- Citation
- [2018] ZAFSHC 37
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- P. J. Loubser, C. Reinders
- Case number
- R25/2018
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- P. J. Loubser, C. Reinders
- Case number
- R25/2018
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Magistrate's sentence was ambiguous and legally flawed, as it suspended only half of the alternative imprisonment term and not the fine, which is illogical. Furthermore, the suspension was incorrectly linked to Section 59(1) of Act 93/1996, which merely prescribes the speed limit, whereas Section 59(4) creates the offence. The High Court set aside the sentence and substituted it with a clear order suspending half of both the fine and the alternative imprisonment for three years, conditional on the accused not being convicted of contravening Section 59(4) during the suspension period.
Court disposition
Sentence set aside and substituted with a corrected sentence suspending half of both the fine and imprisonment term.
Orders
- The sentence imposed by the Magistrate is set aside.
- The accused is sentenced to a fine of R4000.00 or 12 months imprisonment, half of which fine and term of imprisonment is suspended for a period of 3 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening Section 59(4) of Act 93/1996 committed during the period of suspension.
- Section 35 of Act 93/1996 shall not take effect.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantBoithatelo Ben Motake
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: ZAR 4,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Special Review / Review of Magistrate's Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrate was properly structured and legally sound.
- 02
Whether the suspension of only half of the alternative imprisonment term, and not the fine, was correct.
- 03
Whether the reference to Section 59(1) instead of Section 59(4) of Act 93/1996 was appropriate.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State did not submit formal arguments but the Magistrate requested a special review, conceding an oversight in the sentence imposed.
- Respondent
- The accused did not submit formal arguments in the review proceedings.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
A sentence must be clear, rational, and legally correct, particularly regarding the suspension of fines and imprisonment terms.
- 02
National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996
The correct section for the offence of exceeding the speed limit is Section 59(4) of Act 93/1996, not Section 59(1).
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Magistrate's sentence was ambiguous and legally flawed, as it suspended only half of the alternative imprisonment term and not the fine, which is illogical. Furthermore, the suspension was incorrectly linked to Section 59(1) of Act 93/1996, which merely prescribes the speed limit, whereas Section 59(4) creates the offence. The High Court set aside the sentence and substituted it with a clear order suspending half of both the fine and the alternative imprisonment for three years, conditional on the accused not being convicted of contravening Section 59(4) during the suspension period.
Obiter and limits
- Magistrates must ensure that sentences are clear and legally sound to avoid confusion and unnecessary reviews.
- References to statutory provisions in sentencing must be accurate to ensure proper enforcement of conditions.
Court disposition
Sentence set aside and substituted with a corrected sentence suspending half of both the fine and imprisonment term.
- The sentence imposed by the Magistrate is set aside.
- The accused is sentenced to a fine of R4000.00 or 12 months imprisonment, half of which fine and term of imprisonment is suspended for a period of 3 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening Section 59(4) of Act 93/1996 committed during the period of suspension.
- Section 35 of Act 93/1996 shall not take effect.
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 THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Reportable:
YES/NO
Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO
Review number: R25/2018
In the matter between:
THE
STATE
and
BOITHATELO BEN
MOTAKE
CORAM: REINDERS, J et LOUBSER, J
JUDGMENT BY: LOUBSER, J
DELIVERED ON: 15 MARCH 2018
JUDGEMENT
ON SPECIAL REVIEW
[1] This matter came before me as a Special Review in terms of Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It appears from the record of proceedings in the Magistrate’s Court of Clocolan that the accused has been found guilty of exceeding the speed limit in the area of Clocolan by driving his vehicle at a speed of 165 km per hour. The Magistrate sentenced him to a fine of R4000.00 or 12 months imprisonment,
“half suspended for a period of 3 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening Section 59(1) Act 93/1996 committed during the period of suspension.”
It was further ruled by the Magistrate that Section 35 of the Act shall not take effect.
[2] In a note requesting a special review of the sentence, the Magistrate remarked as follows:
“I concede that this is due to an oversight on my part and I apologise.”
The Magistrate did not indicate what the oversight was.
[3] From the record of proceedings it appears that the Magistrate had intended to suspend half of the fine and half of the alternative term of imprisonment for a period of three years, and not only half of the alternative term of imprisonment.
[4] The sentence imposed by the Magistrate creates the impression that only half of the alternative term of imprisonment was suspended,
which makes no sense. Also, the suspension refers to a contravention of Section 59(1) which Section only provides that the speed limit shall be as prescribed. Section 59(4) is actually the Section creating the offence.
[5] The following order is therefore made:
1. The sentence imposed by the Magistrate is set aside and substituted with the following:
The accused is sentenced to a fine of R4000.00 or 12 Months imprisonment, half of which fine and term of imprisonment is suspended for a period of 3 years on condition that the accused is not convicted of contravening Section 59(4) of Act 93/1996, committed during the period of suspension. Section 35 Act 93/1996 shall not take effect.
___
P. J. LOUBSER, J
I concur:
____
C. REINDERS, J
/db
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.