S v Ramokhosi (115/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 127 (11 July 2013)
- Citation
- [2013] ZAFSHC 127
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Mhlambi, Lekale
- Case number
- 115/2013
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Mhlambi, Lekale
- Case number
- 115/2013
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The sentence imposed on the accused was contrary to Section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, because the determination of amounts for sentencing purposes in the Criminal Gazette only became effective from 1 February 2013, whereas the sentence was imposed on 31 January 2013. The Magistrate correctly conceded the error, and the court confirmed the conviction but set aside the sentence, remitting the record for the imposition of an appropriate sentence in accordance with the law.
Court disposition
Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside; matter remitted for appropriate sentencing.
Orders
- The conviction is confirmed.
- The sentence is set aside.
- The record is remitted to the Magistrate for the imposition of an appropriate sentence.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantTsietsi Ramokhosi
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Fine Imposed (set Aside): ZAR 4,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed was contrary to Section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977.
- 02
Whether the sentence was valid in light of the effective date of the Criminal Gazette provisions.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The State requested the application of Section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, following the accused's guilty plea and conviction for assault. The State did not raise any objection to the sentence at the time.
- Respondent
- The Magistrate conceded post-sentencing that the imposed sentence was contrary to Section 112(1)(a) of Act 51 of 1977, as the determination of amounts in the Criminal Gazette only came into effect from 1 February 2013, after the sentence was imposed on 31 January 2013.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
A sentence imposed under Section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act must comply with the statutory requirements and effective dates of relevant legislative provisions.
- 02
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, Section 304(4)
Sentences imposed contrary to statutory provisions must be set aside and remitted for proper sentencing.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The sentence imposed on the accused was contrary to Section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, because the determination of amounts for sentencing purposes in the Criminal Gazette only became effective from 1 February 2013, whereas the sentence was imposed on 31 January 2013. The Magistrate correctly conceded the error, and the court confirmed the conviction but set aside the sentence, remitting the record for the imposition of an appropriate sentence in accordance with the law.
Obiter and limits
- Magistrates must ensure that sentences imposed comply with the effective dates of legislative amendments and gazetted provisions.
- Errors in sentencing procedure should be promptly corrected through special review to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice process.
Court disposition
Conviction confirmed; sentence set aside; matter remitted for appropriate sentencing.
- The conviction is confirmed.
- The sentence is set aside.
- The record is remitted to the Magistrate for the imposition of an appropriate sentence.
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
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Review No : 115/2013
In the review between:
THE
STATE
versus
TSIETSI
RAMOKHOSI
_____________
CORAM: LEKALE, J et MHLAMBI,AJ
JUDGMENT BY: MHLAMBI,AJ
DELIVERED ON: 11 JULY 2013
[1] This matter came before us by way of special review in terms of Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977.
[2] On 31 January 2013 the accused was charged with and pleaded guilty to assault in the Bloemfontein Magistrate’s Court and was convicted accordingly. The State, thereupon, asked the Court to apply the provisions of Section 112(1)(a) of Act 51 of 1977. The following sentence was imposed:
“Fined R4000.00 (four thousand rand only) or undergo 2 (two) months imprisonment wholly suspended for 5 (five) years on condition that the offender is not convicted of assault committed during the period of suspension”
[3] The Magistrate, in referring the matter for special review, said the following:
“After the imposition of the sentence I condede that the sentence imposed is contrary to the provisions of Section 112(1)(a) Act 51 of 1977. The determination of amounts for purposes of certain provisions of the Criminal Gazette No. 36111 dated 30 January 2013 only came into effect from 01 February 2013.”
[4] I agree with the learned Magistrate and make the following orders:
The conviction is confirmed.
The sentence is set aside.
The record is remitted to the Magistrate for the imposition of an appropriate sentence.
_____
JJ MHLAMBI,AJ
I concur.
____
LJ LEKALE, J
/spieterse
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.