S v Oosthuizen (92/2003) [2002] ZANCHC 3 (21 February 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF

SOUTH AFRICA

(NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION)

KIMBERLEY

CASE NO.: 92/2003

DATE: 21-02-2002

In the review matter between:

THE

STATE

and

CONSTANCE

OOSTHUIZEN ACCUSED

CORAM: MAJIEDT J et WILLIAMS AJ

REVIEW

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS AJ:

This matter has come before me on special review. The accused was convicted in the Kathu Magistrate’s Court of the theft of two goats and was sentenced to twelve (12) months imprisonment. In addition she was ordered to compensate the complainant for his damages in terms of section 300 of Act 51 of 1977 in the amount of R600,00 to be paid on or before 30 November 2001.

Magistrate Mkwentla who was also the presiding officer at the trial realised during an inspection of the office files that he had erroneously and contrary to the provisions of section 300 of Act 51 of 1977 fixed a date by which the amount of R600,00 had to be paid to the complainant, and thus requested that the order be corrected on review.

The magistrate is quite right in expressing the view that no date should have been fixed for such payment, the order for compensation being equal to a civil judgment in terms of section 300(3)(a) of Act 51 of 1977.

In such a case there is no legal justification for the fixing of a date and the civil rules of execution apply. (See S v Nyathi 1978(4) SA 26 TPD).

Accordingly the conviction and sentence are confirmed. The order for compensation is deleted and replaced by the following.

In terms of the provisions of section 300 of Act 51 of 1977, the accused is ordered to compensate the complainant, Mr Markram for damages suffered in the amount of R600,00.

______

C.

C WILLIAMS

ACTING

JUDGE

I concur.

__________

S.A.

MAJIEDT

JUDGE