S v Tengana (3918/2003) [2003] ZAWCHC 55; 2007 (1) SACR 138 (C) (17 October 2003)

S v Tengana (3918/2003) [2003] ZAWCHC 55; 2007 (1) SACR 138 (C) (17 October 2003)

The court held that after a magistrate confirms a conviction and admission of guilt fine under Section 57(7) of the Criminal Procedure Act, he is functus officio and has no further jurisdiction to order forfeiture of seized property. Section 32 of the Act vests authority over seized objects in the police, not the magistrate, following payment of an admission of guilt fine. The forfeiture order made by the magistrate was therefore invalid and void ab initio. The court further clarified that forfeiture under Section 35 requires a trial and cannot be ordered in admission of guilt proceedings. The doctrine of stare decisis binds the court to the full bench decision in S v Louw, confirming...

Citation
[2003] ZAWCHC 55
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Dale Tengana
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 October 2003
Case Number
3918/2003
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
The magistrate's order forfeiting the liquor to the State is set aside.
Judges
Moosa, Desai
Legal Topics
Admission of Guilt Fine, Forfeiture of Seized Property, Functus Officio, Criminal Procedure Act, Magistrate Jurisdiction
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Admission of Guilt Fine Forfeiture of Seized Property Functus Officio Criminal Procedure Act Magistrate Jurisdiction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Dale Tengana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a magistrate is competent to order forfeiture of seized liquor after confirming an admission of guilt fine.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate was functus officio after confirming the conviction and fine.
  3. 3 Whether the forfeiture order made by the magistrate was valid in terms of Section 32 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that after a magistrate confirms a conviction and admission of guilt fine under Section 57(7) of the Criminal Procedure Act, he is functus officio and has no further jurisdiction to order forfeiture of seized property. Section 32 of the Act vests authority over seized objects in the police, not the magistrate, following payment of an admission of guilt fine. The forfeiture order made by the magistrate was therefore invalid and void ab initio. The court further clarified that forfeiture under Section 35 requires a trial and cannot be ordered in admission of guilt proceedings. The doctrine of stare decisis binds the court to the full bench decision in S v Louw, confirming...

Court Disposition

The magistrate's order forfeiting the liquor to the State is set aside.

Orders

  • The order of the magistrate dated 26 February 2003, ordering the forfeiture of the liquor to the State, is set aside.