S v Muridzo; S v Ramafikeng (325/2022;324/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 32 (20 February 2023)

S v Muridzo; S v Ramafikeng (325/2022;324/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 32 (20 February 2023)

The sentences imposed by the magistrate in both cases—fines with alternative imprisonment, without a direct term of imprisonment—were incompetent and not in accordance with section 17(e) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. The law requires that a sentence for dealing in drugs must include a term of imprisonment, which may be wholly or partially suspended, and may be coupled with a fine. The review court is obliged to set aside the incompetent sentences and replace them with sentences that comply with the statutory requirements, even if this results in a more onerous sentence for the accused. Given the practical difficulties in securing the attendance of the accused, the review court...

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 32
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Trymore Muridzo; Respondent: Mahlomola Ramafikeng
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 February 2023
Case Number
325/2022;324/2022
Procedural Posture
Special Review / High Court Review of Magistrate's Sentencing
Outcome
Sentences imposed by the magistrate are set aside and replaced with competent sentences in accordance with section 17(e) of the DDTA.
Judges
Le Grange, Henney
Legal Topics
Drug Sentencing, Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, Competent Sentence, Review Powers, Imprisonment and Fine
Criminal Law Drug Sentencing Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act Competent Sentence Review Powers Imprisonment and Fine

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Trymore Muridzo

Respondent

Mahlomola Ramafikeng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Review / High Court Review of Magistrate's Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed by the magistrate for contravening section 5(b) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 were competent and in accordance with justice.
  2. 2 Whether a fine with an alternative of imprisonment, without a direct term of imprisonment, is a competent sentence under section 17(e) of the DDTA.
  3. 3 What powers the review court has to alter or replace incompetent sentences imposed by the magistrate.

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed by the magistrate in both cases—fines with alternative imprisonment, without a direct term of imprisonment—were incompetent and not in accordance with section 17(e) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. The law requires that a sentence for dealing in drugs must include a term of imprisonment, which may be wholly or partially suspended, and may be coupled with a fine. The review court is obliged to set aside the incompetent sentences and replace them with sentences that comply with the statutory requirements, even if this results in a more onerous sentence for the accused. Given the practical difficulties in securing the attendance of the accused, the review court...

Court Disposition

Sentences imposed by the magistrate are set aside and replaced with competent sentences in accordance with section 17(e) of the DDTA.

Orders

  • The sentence of Mahlomola Ramafikeng is set aside and replaced with six (6) months imprisonment suspended for five (5) years on condition that he is not convicted of contravening section 4(b) or 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992 during the period of suspension, in addition to a fine of R3000 or twelve (12) months imprisonment.
  • The sentence of Trymore Muridzo is set aside and replaced with twelve (12) months imprisonment suspended for five (5) years on condition that he is not convicted of contravening section 4(b) or 5(b) of Act 140 of 1992 during the period of suspension, in addition to a fine of R10,000 or three (3) years imprisonment.