S v Riet (4/2018) [2018] ZANCHC 19 (16 March 2018)
- Citation
- [2018] ZANCHC 19
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Williams, Erasmus
- Case number
- 4/2018
More details
- Court
- Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
- Panel
- Williams, Erasmus
- Case number
- 4/2018
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The sentence imposed by the magistrate exceeded the statutory maximum penalty for contempt of court as provided by section 106 of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944. Upon review, the magistrate admitted the error and requested correction. The High Court set aside the original sentence and replaced it with a sentence of six months imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years, on condition that the accused is not again convicted of contravening section 106 during the period of suspension and vacates the specified premises by the stipulated date.
Court disposition
The original sentence is set aside and replaced with a corrected sentence in accordance with the statutory maximum penalty.
Orders
- The sentence imposed is set aside and replaced with six months imprisonment wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not again convicted of contravening section 106 of Act 32 of 1944 committed during the period of suspension and vacates the premises at [...] G. Street, Boikotshang, Galeshewe, on or before 1 August 2017.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantKlaas Tolman Riet
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Review / Special Review
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the sentence imposed for contempt of court exceeded the statutory maximum penalty under section 106 of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944.
- 02
Whether the sentence should be corrected to comply with the statutory limits.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The presiding magistrate requested that the sentence be corrected to include the words 'committed during the period of suspension' and admitted that the twelve months imprisonment imposed was an oversight, requesting correction to six months.
- Respondent
- No formal argument was advanced by the accused; the review was initiated by the magistrate to correct the sentencing error.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944 s106
The statutory penalty for contempt of court under section 106 of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944 is imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The sentence imposed by the magistrate exceeded the statutory maximum penalty for contempt of court as provided by section 106 of the Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944. Upon review, the magistrate admitted the error and requested correction. The High Court set aside the original sentence and replaced it with a sentence of six months imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years, on condition that the accused is not again convicted of contravening section 106 during the period of suspension and vacates the specified premises by the stipulated date.
Obiter and limits
- The oversight by the magistrate in imposing a sentence exceeding the statutory maximum was promptly acknowledged and rectified upon review.
Court disposition
The original sentence is set aside and replaced with a corrected sentence in accordance with the statutory maximum penalty.
- The sentence imposed is set aside and replaced with six months imprisonment wholly suspended for three years on condition that the accused is not again convicted of contravening section 106 of Act 32 of 1944 committed during the period of suspension and vacates the premises at [...] G. Street, Boikotshang, Galeshewe, on or before 1 August 2017.
Source and reliance status
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
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.
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN-CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY)
CASE NO: 4/2018
DATE: 16-03-2018
In the special review judgment of:
THE
STATE
vs
KLAAS
TOLMAN RIET
CORAM: WILLIAMS J et ERASMUS AJ
J U D G M E N T
WILLIAMS J:
1. The accused Mr KT Riet was convicted in the Magistrates Court, Galeshewe, of a contravention of s106 of Magistrates Court Act 32 of 1944 (contempt of court by wilfully disobeying, refusing or failing to comply with an order of court) and sentenced to:
“12 (twelve) months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of 3 (three) years on condition accused is not again convicted of a contravention of section 106 of Act 31 of 1944 and to vacate the premises at [...] G. Street, Bokotshong on/before 1 August 2017.”
2. The matter was sent on special review by the presiding magistrate with the request that the sentence be corrected to include the words “committed during the period of suspension”.
3. The statutory penalty under s 106 of Act 32 of 1944 is inter alia imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months. I therefore enquired from the magistrate how twelve months imprisonment could be justified. The magistrate promptly responded, admitted to an oversight on his part and requested that the twelve months imprisonment imposed be corrected to six months.
The following order is therefore made:
a) The sentence imposed is set aside and replaced with the following:
“The accused is sentenced to 6 (six) months imprisonment wholly suspended for a period of 3 (three) years on condition that the accused:
(1) is not again convicted of contravening section 106 of Act 32 of 1944 committed during the period of suspension; and
(2) vacate the premises at [...] G. Street, Boikotshang, Galeshewe, on or before 1 August 2017”
______
C.C
WILLIAMS
JUDGE
I concur
_______
SL
ERASMUS
ACTING
JUDGE
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.