S v Ramahetlane and Others (7/2019 – 24/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 19 (7 February 2019)
- Citation
- [2019] ZAFSHC 19
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- DAFFUE, MUSI
- Case number
- 7/2019 – 24/2019
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- DAFFUE, MUSI
- Case number
- 7/2019 – 24/2019
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The High Court found that neither the questioning by the magistrate in the first 17 matters nor the admissions made by the accused in the last matter met the requirements established by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi. The court emphasized that the principle of stare decisis applies, and as such, all convictions and sentences must be set aside for failing to comply with the prescribed standards for conviction and sentencing in automatic and special review proceedings under section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act.
Court disposition
All convictions and sentences in the 18 matters are set aside.
Orders
- The conviction and sentence is set aside in respect of each of the following matters: R 24/2019 Thabiso Ramahetlane; R 23/2019 Thabo Makgato; R 22/2019 Isaac Tanki Mpharalala; R 21/2019 Mathaba James Linyoloho; R 20/2019 Monde Michael Mphatsoe; R 19/2019 Tayob Jooma; R 18/2019 Chen Xiaoqiang; R 17/2019 Yusuf Abdulla; R 16/2019 Alphonce Masilo Khoboko; R 15/2019 Travers Justin Johns; R 14/2019 Ansus Belunsan; R 13/2019 Sabelo Othen’yel Nmlengetfwa; R 12/2019 France Mokoena; R 11/2019 Siyabonga Michael Machi; R 10/2019 Tshiliso Maketekete; R 09/2019 Mohaila Jomane; R 08/2019 Khopolo Vincent Nthontho; R 07/2019 Marthims Rudolf Rautenbach.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantThabiso Ramahetlane
RespondentThabo Makgato
RespondentIsaac Tanki Mpharalala
RespondentMathaba James Linyoloho
RespondentMonde Michael Mphatsoe
RespondentTayob Jooma
RespondentChen Xiaoqiang
RespondentYusuf Abdulla
RespondentAlphonce Masilo Khoboko
RespondentTravers Justin Johns
RespondentAnsus Belunsan
RespondentSabelo Othen’yel Nmlengetfwa
RespondentFrance Mokoena
RespondentSiyabonga Michael Machi
RespondentTshiliso Maketekete
RespondentMohaila Jomane
RespondentKhopolo Vincent Nthontho
RespondentMarthims Rudolf Rautenbach
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / High Court Automatic and Special Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the convictions and sentences in all 18 matters comply with the requirements set by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi.
- 02
Whether the questioning by the magistrate and the admissions by the accused meet the legal standard for conviction under section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act.
- 03
Whether the principle of stare decisis requires the setting aside of all convictions and sentences in these matters.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State prosecuted all accused for exceeding the speed limit under section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act. The accused admitted unlawfulness, intention, the applicable speed limit, and the speeds alleged. In the last matter, the accused was represented and submitted a signed section 112(2) statement admitting calibration of the speed measuring device.
- Respondent
- The accused in the first 17 matters were unrepresented and questioned by the magistrate in a similar manner. In the last matter, the accused was represented and made admissions. However, neither the questioning nor the admissions complied with the requirements set out by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi, specifically paragraph [39](b).
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
The State v Enoc Phuzi, case number R254/2018
Convictions and sentences must comply with the requirements set out by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi, especially regarding the adequacy of questioning and admissions.
- 02
General principle of stare decisis
The principle of stare decisis requires lower courts to follow the decisions of higher courts within the same jurisdiction.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The High Court found that neither the questioning by the magistrate in the first 17 matters nor the admissions made by the accused in the last matter met the requirements established by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi. The court emphasized that the principle of stare decisis applies, and as such, all convictions and sentences must be set aside for failing to comply with the prescribed standards for conviction and sentencing in automatic and special review proceedings under section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that admissions regarding the calibration of speed measuring devices are no longer sufficient for conviction.
- The pattern of questioning by the magistrate in unrepresented matters was inadequate and did not meet the required legal standard.
Court disposition
All convictions and sentences in the 18 matters are set aside.
- The conviction and sentence is set aside in respect of each of the following matters: R 24/2019 Thabiso Ramahetlane; R 23/2019 Thabo Makgato; R 22/2019 Isaac Tanki Mpharalala; R 21/2019 Mathaba James Linyoloho; R 20/2019 Monde Michael Mphatsoe; R 19/2019 Tayob Jooma; R 18/2019 Chen Xiaoqiang; R 17/2019 Yusuf Abdulla; R 16/2019 Alphonce Masilo Khoboko; R 15/2019 Travers Justin Johns; R 14/2019 Ansus Belunsan; R 13/2019 Sabelo Othen’yel Nmlengetfwa; R 12/2019 France Mokoena; R 11/2019 Siyabonga Michael Machi; R 10/2019 Tshiliso Maketekete; R 09/2019 Mohaila Jomane; R 08/2019 Khopolo Vincent Nthontho; R 07/2019 Marthims Rudolf Rautenbach.
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,
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Review numbers 7/2019 – 24/2019
In the matter between:
THE
STATE
and
THABISO RAMAHETLANE - CASE NO: R 24/2019
THABO MAKGATO - CASE NO: R 23/2019
ISAAC TANKI MPHARALALA - CASE NO: R 22/2019
MATHABA JAMES LINYOLOHO - CASE NO: R 21/2019
MONDE MICHAEL MPHATSOE - CASE NO: R 20/2019
TAYOB JOOMA - CASE NO: R 19/2019
CHEN XIAOQIANG - CASE NO: R 18/2019
YUSUF ABDULLA - CASE NO: R 17/2019
ALPHONCE MASILO KHOBOKO - CASE NO: R 16/2019
TRAVERS JUSTIN JOHNS - CASE NO: R 15/2019
ANSUS BELUNSAN - CASE NO: R 14/2019
SABELO OTHEN’YEL NMLENGETFWA - CASE NO: R 13/2019
FRANCE MOKOENA - CASE NO: R 12/2019
SIYABONGA MICHAEL MACHI - CASE NO: R 11/2019
TSHILISO MAKETEKETE - CASE NO: R 10/2019
MOHAILA JOMANE - CASE NO: R 09/2019
KHOPOLO VINCENT NTHONTHO- CASE NO: R 08/2019
MARTHIMS RUDOLF RAUTENBACH- CASE NO: R 07/2019
CORAM: MUSI, JP et DAFFUE,
J
JUDGMENT BY: DAFFUE,
J
DELIVERED ON: 7 FEBRUARY 2019
REVIEW
[1] The proceedings in all 18 matters have been sent to the High Court on review. The first 17 matters are automatic reviews as the accused were unrepresented, whilst the last matter, that of the accused, Mr Rautenbach, is a special review insofar as he was represented by an attorney.
[2] In all instances the accused were charged with contravention of section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act, 93 of 1996, to wit that they exceeded the speed limit of 100 km/h on the R26 public road near Clocolan by travelling at speeds ranging from 148 to 165 km/h respectively. They all admitted that:
2.1 their actions were unlawful and intentional;
2.2 the speed limit of 100 km/h on the R26 public road is 100 kph;
2.3 they had travelled at the speed accused of in the respective charge sheets.
[3] The same magistrate, who has been appointed to the substantive rank of magistrate on 4 January 2013, was the presiding officer in all matters. It is apparent that her questioning in the first 17 cases virtually followed the same pattern in each case.
[4] In the last matter the accused, Mr Rautenbach, was represented by an attorney who handed in the accused’s signed s 112(2) statement upon which he was convicted. The accused went so far to admit that the Truvelo apparatus was duly calibrated, but that is not sufficient anymore.
[5] On 28 December 2018 the full bench of this Division handed down judgment in The State v Enoc Phuzi, case number R254/2018. Neither the questioning by the presiding magistrate in the first 17 matters, nor the admissions by Mr Rautenbach comply with the requirements laid down by the full bench as set out in paragraph [39](b) of the judgment.
[6] The stare decisis principle applies and consequently all convictions and sentences should be set aside.
[7] The conviction and sentence is set aside in respect of each of the following matters:
CASE NO: R 24/2019 THABISO RAMAHETLANE
CASE NO: R 23/2019 THABO MAKGATO
CASE NO: R 22/2019 ISAAC TANKI MPHARALALA
CASE NO: R 21/2019 MATHABA JAMES LINYOLOHO
CASE NO: R 20/2019 MONDE MICHAEL MPHATSOE
CASE NO: R 19/2019TAYOB JOOMA
CASE NO: R 18/2019 CHEN XIAOQIANG
CASE NO: R 17/2019 YUSUF ABDULLA
CASE NO: R 16/2019 ALPHONCE MASILO KHOBOKO
CASE NO: R 15/2019 TRAVERS JUSTIN JOHNS
CASE NO: R 14/2019 ANSUS BELUNSAN
CASE NO: R 13/2019 SABELO OTHEN’YEL NMLENGETFWA
CASE NO: R 12/2019 FRANCE MOKOENA
CASE NO: R 11/2019 SIYABONGA MICHAEL MACHI
CASE NO: R 10/2019 TSHILISO MAKETEKETE
CASE NO: R 09/2019 MOHAILA JOMANE
CASE NO: R 08/2019 KHOPOLO VINCENT NTHONTHO
CASE NO: R 07/2019 MARTHIMS RUDOLF RAUTENBACH
____
J P DAFFUE, J
I concur
____
C J MUSI, JP
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.