S v PL breytenbach Transport Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Another (189/87) [1988] ZASCA 60 (26 May 1988)

S v PL breytenbach Transport Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Another (189/87) [1988] ZASCA 60 (26 May 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the forfeiture order was compulsory under section 36(1) of the Road Transportation Act due to the second appellant's previous convictions for unauthorized road transportation. The argument that the first appellant's ignorance of the second appellant's prior convictions should be read into the proviso was rejected, as such an interpretation would amount to an amendment of the statute rather than a permissible construction. The Court emphasized that the proper forum for considering the application of the proviso and any evidence relating to it was the trial court, and no such application or evidence had been presented. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 60
Parties
Appellant: P L Breytenbach Transport Contractors (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Ramsammy Naidoo; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 1988
Case Number
189/87
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Hoexter, Nestadt, Vivier, Nicholas, Boshoff
Legal Topics
Road Transportation Act, Forfeiture of Property, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Road Transportation Act Forfeiture of Property Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P L Breytenbach Transport Contractors (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Ramsammy Naidoo

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the forfeiture of vehicles under section 36(1) of the Road Transportation Act was compulsory due to previous convictions.
  2. 2 Whether the proviso to section 36(1) allows an owner ignorant of a co-accused's previous convictions to avoid forfeiture.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court was the correct forum to consider the application of the proviso.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the forfeiture order was compulsory under section 36(1) of the Road Transportation Act due to the second appellant's previous convictions for unauthorized road transportation. The argument that the first appellant's ignorance of the second appellant's prior convictions should be read into the proviso was rejected, as such an interpretation would amount to an amendment of the statute rather than a permissible construction. The Court emphasized that the proper forum for considering the application of the proviso and any evidence relating to it was the trial court, and no such application or evidence had been presented. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.