S v Ramahetlane and Others (7/2019 – 24/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 19 (7 February 2019)
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.
- Citation
- [2019] ZAFSHC 19
- 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
- Judgment Date
- 7 February 2019
- Case Number
- 7/2019 – 24/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / High Court Automatic and Special Review
- Outcome
- All convictions and sentences in the 18 matters are set aside.
- Judges
- DAFFUE, MUSI
- Legal Topics
- Automatic Review, Special Review, National Road Traffic Act, Speeding Offences, Conviction Requirements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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 / High Court Automatic and Special Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the convictions and sentences in all 18 matters comply with the requirements set by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi.
- 2 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.
- 3 Whether the principle of stare decisis requires the setting aside of all convictions and sentences in these matters.
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.
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...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment