S v Ntlathi (189/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 53 (26 May 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] ZAFSHC 53
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A S Boonzaaier, G F Wright
- Case number
- 189/2010
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- A S Boonzaaier, G F Wright
- Case number
- 189/2010
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The order declaring the accused unfit to possess a firearm was not permissible because the conviction was only for possession of dagga, which is not an offence listed under section 103(1)(k) of Act 60 of 2000. The presiding officer conceded this point, and the order was accordingly set aside. The remainder of the sentence stands, and the accused must be informed of the alteration.
Court disposition
The order declaring the accused unfit to possess a firearm is set aside. The accused is to be informed about the alteration of the sentence.
Orders
- The order that the accused is unfit to possess a firearm is set aside.
- The accused is to be informed about the alteration of the sentence.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantThami Ntlathi
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: ZAR 4,000
- Suspended Fine: ZAR 2,000
- Dagga Quantity: ZAR 760
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Review / Automatic Review After Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the order declaring the accused unfit to possess a firearm was permissible under the relevant statute.
- 02
Whether the sentence imposed was lawful and appropriate.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State withdrew the main charge and proceeded with the charge of possession or use of dagga. The accused pleaded guilty and was convicted. The presiding officer imposed a sentence including a declaration that the accused was unfit to possess a firearm.
- Respondent
- The presiding officer, upon review query, conceded that the order declaring the accused unfit to possess a firearm was not permissible as the conviction was only for possession of dagga, not for an offence listed under section 103(1)(k) of Act 60 of 2000.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 103(1)(k) of Act 60 of 2000
A person convicted only of possession of dagga cannot be declared unfit to possess a firearm under section 103(1)(k) of Act 60 of 2000.
- 02
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
Automatic review of criminal proceedings is governed by section 302 read with section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The order declaring the accused unfit to possess a firearm was not permissible because the conviction was only for possession of dagga, which is not an offence listed under section 103(1)(k) of Act 60 of 2000. The presiding officer conceded this point, and the order was accordingly set aside. The remainder of the sentence stands, and the accused must be informed of the alteration.
Obiter and limits
- The forfeiture of dagga to the State and the suspended portion of the sentence remain unaffected by the review.
Court disposition
The order declaring the accused unfit to possess a firearm is set aside. The accused is to be informed about the alteration of the sentence.
- The order that the accused is unfit to possess a firearm is set aside.
- The accused is to be informed about the alteration of the sentence.
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
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
Review No. 189/2010
In the review between:
THE
STATE
versus
THAMI
NTLATHI
CORAM: BOONZAAIER, AJ et
WRIGHT, J
JUDGMENT BY: BOONZAAIER, AJ
____________
DELIVERED ON: 26 MAY 2010
[1] This matter came before me on automatic review in terms of section 302 read with section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, (“the CPA”). The accused were charged in the Bloemfontein Magistrate’s Court on 23 April 2010 with dealing in an undesirable dependence producing substance to wit dagga. (The alternative charge being possession or use of dagga.)
[2] The State withdrew the main charge against the three accused persons, but proceeded with the charge of the contravention of section 4 (b) read with sections, 13(d), 17(d), 18,19, 20 and 64 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, 140 of 1992, (“the Drug Trafficking Act “), for being in possession of or the use of 760 grams of dagga.
[3] Accused number 1, (the only accused in this review) pleaded guilty and accused persons number 2 and 3 pleaded not guilty.
Accused number 1 was then convicted as charged and sentenced to R4 000,00 (four thousand rand) or 12 (twelve) months imprisonment of which R2 000,00 (two thousand rand) or 6 (six) months imprisonment is suspended for a period of 5 (five) years on condition that the accused is not again convicted of contravening section 4 (b) Act 140 of 1992 committed during the period of suspension. The dagga was forfeited to the State. Accused was declared unfit to possess a firearm.
[4] A query was directed to the presiding officer as I was of the view that the order that the accused is unfit to possess a firearm was not in order. Section 103(1) (k) of Act 60 of 2000 does not permit of that.
[5] The presiding officer supplied me with his comments and conceded that as the accused was convicted of the possession of dagga only an order declaring him unfit to possess a firearm was not permissible.
[6] ORDER:
1. The order that the accused is unfit to possess a firearm is set aside
2. The accused is to be informed about the alteration of the sentence.
____
A. S. BOONZAAIER, AJ
I concur.
G. F. WRIGHT, J
/em
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.