S v Nthongoa, S Hlaza and Another, S v Mtshali and Another, S v Qhamakoane and Others, S v Makhalema, S v Chabalele and Another, S v Mathozi and Others, S v Tofu and Others, S v Hlakoane and Another, S v Mboweni, S v Ngxatha and Others, S v Motsoeneng and Others, S v November, S v Sebotho and Another, S v Seitlheko and Others, S v Ngxoboyi, S v Mokhuma and Others (90/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 90 (10 May 2012)

S v Nthongoa, S Hlaza and Another, S v Mtshali and Another, S v Qhamakoane and Others, S v Makhalema, S v Chabalele and Another, S v Mathozi and Others, S v Tofu and Others, S v Hlakoane and Another, S v Mboweni, S v Ngxatha and Others, S v Motsoeneng and Others, S v November, S v Sebotho and Another, S v Seitlheko and Others, S v Ngxoboyi, S v Mokhuma and Others (90/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 90 (10 May 2012)

The court held that the proceedings in all the cases under review are a nullity because the presiding magistrate, Mr Ludick, became absolutely unavailable to conclude the trials. There is no statutory provision for continuation of partly heard matters in such circumstances prior to conviction. The accused's right to a fair trial without unreasonable delay is not infringed by restarting proceedings de novo, as there has not been an inordinate delay since the magistrate became unavailable. The prosecuting authority is authorised to commence proceedings afresh before another judicial officer if it so decides.

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 90
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Johannes Molefi Nthongoa; Respondent: Tlali Johannes Hlaza; Respondent: Elias Barda; Respondent: Selby Bhekuyise Mtshali; Respondent: Zamuxolo Nickson Kholo Majova; Respondent: Percy Kabas Qhamakoane; Respondent: Khetsing Pavince Kolisang; Respondent: Tsetsi Paul Tseli; Respondent: Ralepotsi August Tseli; Respondent: Matsoso Mahlomola Julius; Respondent: Kenalemang William Makhalema; Respondent: Mbalekelwe John Chabalele; Respondent: Tohley Teboho Edwin Mlangene; Respondent: Pule William Mathozi; Respondent: Moeketsi Given Sonyathi; Respondent: Jacob Tieho Motaung; Respondent: Saziso Tofu; Respondent: Monyane Makhetha; Respondent: Paul Mohapi; Respondent: Pedro Laquen; Respondent: Africa Pule Hlakoane; Respondent: Tatolo Andrew Baadjie; Respondent: Sipho Themba Mboweni; Respondent: Thandisiewe Ngxatha; Respondent: Vumi Ngxatha; Respondent: Lulama Nashomboza; Respondent: Moses Motsheare Motsoeneng; Respondent: Thapelo Matlala; Respondent: Mark Miquel Mesa; Respondent: Simphiwe November; Respondent: Phumizile Wiseman Sebotho; Respondent: Mothibedi Jan Lebatla; Respondent: Tsediso Benjamin Seitlheko; Respondent: Modulelo Petrus Pitso; Respondent: Ntombi Evelyn Matroos; Respondent: Vusi Johannes Ngxoboyi; Respondent: Pono Zwelinzima Mokhuma; Respondent: Selempi Stoffel London
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2012
Case Number
90/2012
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Proceedings in all listed cases are declared a nullity and set aside. The prosecuting authority is authorised to commence proceedings de novo before another judicial officer if it so decides.
Judges
Hancke, Snellenburg
Legal Topics
Unavailability of Judicial Officer, Nullity of Proceedings, Right to Fair Trial, Delay in Trial, De Novo Trial
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Unavailability of Judicial Officer Nullity of Proceedings Right to Fair Trial Delay in Trial De Novo Trial

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Johannes Molefi Nthongoa

Respondent

Tlali Johannes Hlaza

Respondent

Elias Barda

Respondent

Selby Bhekuyise Mtshali

Respondent

Zamuxolo Nickson Kholo Majova

Respondent

Percy Kabas Qhamakoane

Respondent

Khetsing Pavince Kolisang

Respondent

Tsetsi Paul Tseli

Respondent

Ralepotsi August Tseli

Respondent

Matsoso Mahlomola Julius

Respondent

Kenalemang William Makhalema

Respondent

Mbalekelwe John Chabalele

Respondent

Tohley Teboho Edwin Mlangene

Respondent

Pule William Mathozi

Respondent

Moeketsi Given Sonyathi

Respondent

Jacob Tieho Motaung

Respondent

Saziso Tofu

Respondent

Monyane Makhetha

Respondent

Paul Mohapi

Respondent

Pedro Laquen

Respondent

Africa Pule Hlakoane

Respondent

Tatolo Andrew Baadjie

Respondent

Sipho Themba Mboweni

Respondent

Thandisiewe Ngxatha

Respondent

Vumi Ngxatha

Respondent

Lulama Nashomboza

Respondent

Moses Motsheare Motsoeneng

Respondent

Thapelo Matlala

Respondent

Mark Miquel Mesa

Respondent

Simphiwe November

Respondent

Phumizile Wiseman Sebotho

Respondent

Mothibedi Jan Lebatla

Respondent

Tsediso Benjamin Seitlheko

Respondent

Modulelo Petrus Pitso

Respondent

Ntombi Evelyn Matroos

Respondent

Vusi Johannes Ngxoboyi

Respondent

Pono Zwelinzima Mokhuma

Respondent

Selempi Stoffel London

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings before a magistrate who becomes absolutely unavailable are a nullity.
  2. 2 Whether the accused's right to a fair trial without unreasonable delay is infringed by restarting proceedings de novo.
  3. 3 Whether the prosecuting authority may commence proceedings afresh before another judicial officer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the proceedings in all the cases under review are a nullity because the presiding magistrate, Mr Ludick, became absolutely unavailable to conclude the trials. There is no statutory provision for continuation of partly heard matters in such circumstances prior to conviction. The accused's right to a fair trial without unreasonable delay is not infringed by restarting proceedings de novo, as there has not been an inordinate delay since the magistrate became unavailable. The prosecuting authority is authorised to commence proceedings afresh before another judicial officer if it so decides.

Court Disposition

Proceedings in all listed cases are declared a nullity and set aside. The prosecuting authority is authorised to commence proceedings de novo before another judicial officer if it so decides.

Orders

  • The proceedings in case numbers SHO 30/11, RC 74/11, RC 128/11, SH 46/11, RC 407/11, RC 248/08, SHO 5/11, RC 228/11, RC 15/11, RC 68/11, RC 560/09, SH 123/08, RC 189/11, SHBV 20/11, RC 489/10, SHO 1/11, SH 324/08 are declared a nullity and set aside.
  • The cases are remitted to the Regional Court, Welkom, and the prosecuting authority is authorised to commence proceedings de novo in each case before another judicial officer if it so decides.