S v Pheko (758/2008) [2009] ZAFSHC 8 (29 January 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] ZAFSHC 8
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Rampai, Moloi
- Case number
- 758/2008
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Rampai, Moloi
- Case number
- 758/2008
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The review court found that the magistrate's order authorising deferred payment of the fine contained a mathematical error, resulting in the total instalments exceeding the correct outstanding balance. The magistrate intended the deferred payments to total R2,400.00, but the order as recorded added up to R2,600.00. The review court set aside the incorrect portion of the order and substituted it with the correct instalment amount, ensuring the order accurately reflected the sentence imposed and the intention of the magistrate.
Court disposition
The incorrect portion of the deferred payment order is set aside and substituted with the correct instalment arrangement; the remainder of the order stands.
Orders
- The first leg of the court order dated 17 October 2008 is set aside.
- It is substituted with: R400.00 on or before 15 November 2008.
- The remainder of the said court order stands.
02
Material facts
Parties
Die Staat
ApplicantKhauhelo Pheko
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed: ZAR 6,000
- Suspended Portion of Imprisonment (months): 6
- Initial Payment: ZAR 600
- Deferred Payment Balance: ZAR 2,400
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Review / Automatic Review After Conviction and Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the deferred payment order for the fine imposed on the accused was correctly calculated and recorded.
- 02
Whether the original court order accurately reflected the magistrate's intention regarding instalment payments.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State did not make submissions; the matter was before the court on automatic review.
- Respondent
- The accused applied for deferred payment of the balance of the fine after making an initial payment, and the magistrate intended the deferred payments to total the correct outstanding amount.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
National Road Traffic Act No. 93 of 1996
A court order must accurately reflect the intention and calculation of the sentence imposed, particularly regarding monetary penalties and deferred payment arrangements.
- 02
S v Pheko (758/2008) [2009] ZAFSHC 8
Errors in the calculation or recording of a sentence or order may be rectified on review to ensure the order is lawful and executable.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The review court found that the magistrate's order authorising deferred payment of the fine contained a mathematical error, resulting in the total instalments exceeding the correct outstanding balance. The magistrate intended the deferred payments to total R2,400.00, but the order as recorded added up to R2,600.00. The review court set aside the incorrect portion of the order and substituted it with the correct instalment amount, ensuring the order accurately reflected the sentence imposed and the intention of the magistrate.
Obiter and limits
- The magistrate's good intentions are noted, but the written order must correspond with the actual calculation and intention to avoid confusion or prejudice to the accused.
- Review proceedings serve to correct inadvertent errors in lower court orders, ensuring justice and procedural accuracy.
Court disposition
The incorrect portion of the deferred payment order is set aside and substituted with the correct instalment arrangement; the remainder of the order stands.
- The first leg of the court order dated 17 October 2008 is set aside.
- It is substituted with: R400.00 on or before 15 November 2008.
- The remainder of the said court order stands.
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
(ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Case No.: 758/2008
In the case between:
DIE STAAT
and
KHAUHELO PHEKO
_____________
CORAM: RAMPAI, J et MOLOI, AJ
JUDGMENT: RAMPAI, J
DELIVERED ON: 29 JANUARY 2009
[1] The matter came to this court on automatic review. The charge against the accused was that he drove a motor vehicle, a Nissan Skyline Sedan with registration number CNG783FS at Botshabelo on the 27 September 2008 while he was under the influence of alcohol. He was convicted on his plea on the 17 October 2008 for contravention of section 65(1)(a), National Road Traffic Act No. 93 of 1996.
[2] Following his conviction he was sentence to R6 000,00 or twelve months imprisonment of which half was conditionally suspended for 4 years. The court directed in terms of section 35(3) that his drivers licence be not automatically suspended.
[3] Subsequent to his sentencing the accused applied for and obtained a court order authorising him to pay the balance of the court fine by way of deferred periodic instalments. The relevant court order reads:
âUitstelboete verleen soos volg:
R600,00 op of voor 15/11/2008
R400,00 op of voor 15/12/2008
R400,00 op of voor 15/01/2009
R400,00 op of voor 15/02/2009
R400,00 op of voor 15/03/2009
R400,00 op of voor 15/04/2009â
[4] Now, the aforegoing monthly instalments add up to the total sum of R2 600,00. This is inaccurate. The correct balance was R2 400,00. The original fine was R3 000,00 which the accused reduced by R600,00
leaving a balance of R2 400,00 on the 17th October 2008.
[5] In his response to my query the magistrate confirmed that the accused made an initial payment of R600,00 on the 17th October 2008 and that he was granted deferred payment in respect of the balance of R2 400,00. The magistrate then continued to say:
âDus, R400.00 X 6 = R2400.00 plus R600.00 = R3000.00.â
I appreciate the magistrateâs good intentions. However, the court order reads differently. It does not reflect his intention. It reads R600,00 X 1 plus R400,00 x 5 = R2 600 + R600,00
= R3 200,00. This appears to have been an inadvertent error. Therefore it needs to be rectified on review.
[6] Accordingly I make the following order:
6.1 The first leg of the court order dated the 17 October 2008 is hereby set aside;
6.2 It is substituted therefore the following as the first leg of that order:
R400,00 on or before the 15th of November 2008.
6.3 The remainder of the said court order stands.
______
M. H. RAMPAI, J
I concur.
____
K. J. MOLOI, AJ
/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.