S v Ramahetlane and Others (R7/2019 - R24/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 1 (7 February 2019)

S v Ramahetlane and Others (R7/2019 - R24/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 1 (7 February 2019)

The court found that the questioning by the magistrate in the first 17 cases and the admissions made by Mr Rautenbach in the last case did not comply with the procedural requirements established by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi. The principle of stare decisis mandates that these requirements be followed....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 1
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Thabiso Ramahetlane; Respondent: Thabo Makgato; Respondent: Isaac Tanki Mpharalala; Respondent: Mathaba James Linyoloho; Respondent: Monde Michael Mphatsoe; Respondent: Tayob Jooma; Respondent: Chen Xiaoqiang; Respondent: Yusuf Abdulla; Respondent: Alphonce Masilo Khoboko; Respondent: Travers Justin Johns; Respondent: Ansus Belunsan; Respondent: Sabelo Othen’yel Nmlengetfwa; Respondent: France Mokoena; Respondent: Siyabonga Michael Machi; Respondent: Tshiliso Maketekete; Respondent: Mohaila Jomane; Respondent: Khopolo Vincent Nthontho; Respondent: Marthims Rudolf Rautenbach
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Case Number
R7/2019 - R24/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic and Special Review
Outcome
All convictions and sentences in the reviewed matters are set aside.
Judges
DAFFUE, MUSI
Legal Topics
Automatic Review, Special Review, Speeding Offences, National Road Traffic Act, Stare Decisis
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Automatic Review Special Review Speeding Offences National Road Traffic Act Stare Decisis

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Thabiso Ramahetlane

Respondent

Thabo Makgato

Respondent

Isaac Tanki Mpharalala

Respondent

Mathaba James Linyoloho

Respondent

Monde Michael Mphatsoe

Respondent

Tayob Jooma

Respondent

Chen Xiaoqiang

Respondent

Yusuf Abdulla

Respondent

Alphonce Masilo Khoboko

Respondent

Travers Justin Johns

Respondent

Ansus Belunsan

Respondent

Sabelo Othen’yel Nmlengetfwa

Respondent

France Mokoena

Respondent

Siyabonga Michael Machi

Respondent

Tshiliso Maketekete

Respondent

Mohaila Jomane

Respondent

Khopolo Vincent Nthontho

Respondent

Marthims Rudolf Rautenbach

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic and Special Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions and sentences for contravention of section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act were lawful and complied with procedural requirements.
  2. 2 Whether the questioning and admissions by the accused met the standards set by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi.
  3. 3 Whether the principle of stare decisis requires the setting aside of all convictions and sentences in these matters.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the questioning by the magistrate in the first 17 cases and the admissions made by Mr Rautenbach in the last case did not comply with the procedural requirements established by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi. The principle of stare decisis mandates that these requirements be followed. As a result, all convictions and sentences in the reviewed matters were unlawful and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

All convictions and sentences in the reviewed matters are set aside.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence is set aside in respect of each of the following matters: R24/2019 Thabiso Ramahetlane; R23/2019 Thabo Makgato; R22/2019 Isaac Tanki Mpharalala; R21/2019 Mathaba James Linyoloho; R20/2019 Monde Michael Mphatsoe; R19/2019 Tayob Jooma; R18/2019 Chen Xiaoqiang; R17/2019 Yusuf Abdulla;...