S v Tshabalala (112/2009) [2009] ZAFSHC 43 (5 March 2009)
- Citation
- [2009] ZAFSHC 43
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Hancke, R, Van Zyl, R
- Case number
- 112/2009
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- Hancke, R, Van Zyl, R
- Case number
- 112/2009
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the accused could not be convicted under section 117(a) of Act 111 of 1998 for count one, as the statute was not in force on the date of the offence. Applying section 270 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court substituted the conviction with one under section 48(1)(a) of Act 8 of 1959, which was in force at the relevant time. The conviction on count two was confirmed, as the statute was operative at the time of the offence. The matter was remitted to the magistrate's court for sentencing.
Court disposition
Conviction on count one set aside and replaced with conviction under section 48(1)(a) of Act 8 of 1959; conviction on count two confirmed; matter remitted for sentencing.
Orders
- The conviction on count one is set aside and replaced with a conviction under section 48(1)(a) of Act 8 of 1959.
- The conviction on count two is confirmed.
- The matter is referred back to the magistrate's court for the imposition of an appropriate sentence.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantOupa Peter Tshabalala
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304 a of the Criminal Procedure Act
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused could be convicted under a statute not in force at the time of the alleged offence.
- 02
Whether the conviction on count one should be set aside and replaced with a conviction under the applicable statute.
- 03
Whether the conviction on count two should be confirmed.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The magistrate requested that the conviction on count one be set aside and replaced with a conviction under section 48(1)(a) of Act 8 of 1959, as the statute under which the accused was charged was not in force at the time of the offence. The conviction on count two, where the statute was in force, should be confirmed.
- Respondent
- The accused pleaded guilty to both charges and admitted all elements of the offences. No argument was advanced against the magistrate's request for correction of the conviction on count one.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 270 of Act 51 of 1977
A person cannot be convicted under a statute that was not in force at the time of the commission of the offence.
- 02
Section 270 of Act 51 of 1977
Where evidence proves the commission of a lesser or different offence included in the charge, the accused may be convicted of that offence.
- 03
Hiemstra: Suid-Afrikaanse Strafproses, 6th Edition, p. 676-677
Reference to authoritative commentary confirms the approach to substitute the conviction under the correct statute.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the accused could not be convicted under section 117(a) of Act 111 of 1998 for count one, as the statute was not in force on the date of the offence. Applying section 270 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court substituted the conviction with one under section 48(1)(a) of Act 8 of 1959, which was in force at the relevant time. The conviction on count two was confirmed, as the statute was operative at the time of the offence. The matter was remitted to the magistrate's court for sentencing.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that no prejudice would result from substituting the conviction under the correct statute.
- The review procedure ensures that convictions are in accordance with the law and applicable statutes.
Court disposition
Conviction on count one set aside and replaced with conviction under section 48(1)(a) of Act 8 of 1959; conviction on count two confirmed; matter remitted for sentencing.
- The conviction on count one is set aside and replaced with a conviction under section 48(1)(a) of Act 8 of 1959.
- The conviction on count two is confirmed.
- The matter is referred back to the magistrate's court 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
IN DIE HOOGGEREGSHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
(ORANJE VRYSTAATSE PROVINSIALE AFDELING)
Hersieningsnommer. : 112/2009
In die saak tussen:
DIE
STAAT
en
OUPA
PETER TSHABALALA
_____________
CORAM: HANCKE, R et VAN ZYL, R
UITSPRAAK: HANCKE,
R
GELEWER OP: 5 MARCH 2009
[1] Hierdie is ân spesiale hersiening ingevolge Artikel 304A van Wet nr. 51 van 1977. Die beskuldigde het in die distrikshof te Bethlehem tereggestaan op twee aanklagte van oortreding van Artikel 117(a) van Wet 111 van 1998 (ontsnapping). Nadat hy skuldig gepleit het en die landdros tevrede was dat hy al die elemente van die betrokke misdrywe erken het, is hy aldus skuldig bevind op beide aanklagte.
[2] Toe die landdros die betrokke Wet nagaan met oog op strafoplegging, het sy vasgestel dat die betrokke Wet nog nie in werking was op datum van die pleging van die misdryf vermeld in aanklag een nie, naamlik op 9 Junie 1998, aangesien die betrokke Wet eers op 19 Februarie 1999 in werking getree het.
[3] Artikel 270 van Wet 51 van 1977, soos gewysig, lui soos volg:
âIndien die getuienis op ân aanklag weens ân misdryf wat nie in die voorafgaande artikels van hierdie Hoofstuk vermeld word nie, nie die pleging van die aldus ten laste gelegde misdryf bewys nie, maar die pleging van ân misdryf bewys wat uit hoofde van die wesenlike bestandele van daardie misdryf by die aldus ten laste gelegde misdryf inbegrepe is, kan die beskuldigde aan die aldus bewese misdryf skuldig bevind word.â
Vergelyk ook aantekeninge in Hiemstra: SUID-AFRIKAANSE STRAFPROSES, 6de Uitgawe deur Johann Kriegler en Albert Kruger, p. 676 tot 677.
[4] Uit hoofde van die voormelde bepalings, vra die landdros dat die skuldigbevinding ten opsigte van aanklagte een ter syde gestel moet word en vervang word met ân skuldigbevinding aan oortreding van Artikel 48(1)(a) van Wet nr. 8 van 1959, wat destyds van krag was. Ten opsigte van aanklag twee was die betrokke Wet reeds van krag gewees. Na my mening kan daar geen benadeling wees nie, en behoort aan die landdros se versoek voldoen te word.
[5] Bygevolg word die volgende bevele verleen:
1. Wat aanklag een betref word die skuldigbevinding tersyde gestel en vervang met ân skuldigbevinding aan oortreding van Artikel 48(1)(a) van Wet nr. 8 van 1959.
2. Die skuldigbevinding ten opsigte van aanklag 2 word bekragtig.
3. Die saak word na die landdroshof terugverwys vir die oplegging van ân gepaste vonnis.
_____
S. P. B. HANCKE, R
Ek stem saam.
___
C. VAN ZYL, R
/EM
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.