Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

S v Zulu and Others (AR219/2022) [2023] ZAKZPHC 71 (30 June 2023)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the charges against the accused were not in accordance with the provisions of the National Land Transport Act, as section 50 does not require the display of the operating licence or permit, but rather prohibits operating without holding such a licence or permit. The procedure followed by the prosecutor and magistrate did not comply with sections 57 and 57A of the Criminal Procedure Act, as no summons or written notice was issued to the accused, who were arrested and released on bail. The accused were entitled to have legal representation explained to them due to the seriousness of the charges. The proceedings were not in accordance with justice and were reviewed and set aside.

Court disposition

Proceedings relating to all accused were found not to be in accordance with justice and were reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • The proceedings against all listed accused are reviewed and set aside.

02

Material facts

Parties

The State

Applicant

Thulile Rachel Zulu

Respondent

S W Buthelezi

Respondent

SM Ngubane

Respondent

W B Mbatha

Respondent

MA Ngobese

Respondent

TA Magwaza

Respondent

L Ntombela

Respondent

MT Zuma

Respondent

E T Shabalala

Respondent

MP Mbatha

Respondent

WP Khumalo

Respondent

BE Magwaza

Respondent

SK Shangase

Respondent

K J Ngcobo

Respondent

H B Mlotshwa

Respondent

BA Khumalo

Respondent

CI Thwala

Respondent

CP Ndlovu

Respondent

B N Masango

Respondent

M J Mahaye

Respondent

ME Ngobese

SR Zungu

Respondent

Amounts and remedies

  • Maximum Fine for Offence: ZAR 100,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal Review / Review of Magistrate's Proceedings Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The magistrate contended that only accused who were summoned or issued with notice to appear can admit guilt and pay a fine without appearing before court. Arrested accused must appear before court before being transferred to the admissions of guilt record book. The offences were not petty, given the maximum fine and imprisonment term, and the accused were entitled to have legal representation explained to them due to the seriousness of the charges.
Respondent
The Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions supported the magistrate's view, arguing that the proceedings were not in accordance with justice because neither a summons nor a written notice was issued, resulting in non-compliance with sections 57 and 57A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The accused were arrested and released on bail, but the proper procedure for admission of guilt fines was not followed.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 s304(4)

    Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act empowers the High Court to review proceedings not in accordance with justice.

  2. 02

    Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 s57(6)

    Section 57(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act deems an accused to have been convicted and sentenced by the court upon payment of an admission of guilt fine.

  3. 03

    National Land Transport Act 5 of 2009 s50(1)

    Section 50(1) of the National Land Transport Act prohibits operating a road-based public transport service without holding an operating licence or permit.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the charges against the accused were not in accordance with the provisions of the National Land Transport Act, as section 50 does not require the display of the operating licence or permit, but rather prohibits operating without holding such a licence or permit. The procedure followed by the prosecutor and magistrate did not comply with sections 57 and 57A of the Criminal Procedure Act, as no summons or written notice was issued to the accused, who were arrested and released on bail. The accused were entitled to have legal representation explained to them due to the seriousness of the charges. The proceedings were not in accordance with justice and were reviewed and set aside.

Obiter and limits

  • An arrested person may be released and issued with a summons or notice to appear, and if the offence qualifies, an admission of guilt fine may be fixed. The fact of initial arrest does not preclude fixing an admission of guilt fine, but proper procedure must be followed.
  • Cases where accused admit guilt extra-judicially are reserved for petty crimes, and the offences in question were not petty given the maximum penalties.

Court disposition

Proceedings relating to all accused were found not to be in accordance with justice and were reviewed and set aside.

  • The proceedings against all listed accused are reviewed and set aside.

Source and reliance status

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

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.

Source document

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Judgment

[2023] ZAKZPHC 71

FLYNOTES:

CRIMINAL – Admission of guilt fines – Procedure – Accused arrested and released on police bail for failing to display route permits for public transport – No summons or written notice issued – Prosecutor fixing admission of fines which they paid – Magistrate submitting matter for review – Reasoning that only accused who were summoned or issued with notice to appear can admit guilt and pay fine without appearing before court and that arrested accused must appear before court – Charges found not to be in accordance with provisions of National Land Transport Act 5 of 2009 – Proceedings not in accordance with justice, reviewed and set aside.

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG

Case No: AR219/2022

In the matter between:

THE

STATE

And

THULILE RACHEL ZULU AND 21 OTHERS

REVIEW

JUDGMENT

Date delivered ..........................

Mngadi J (P Bezuidenhout J concurring)

1. The magistrate submits for review in terms of section 304 (4) of the

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA) 22 matters. Section 304 (4) provides that: If in any criminal case in which a magistrate's court has imposed a sentence which is not subject to review in the ordinary course in terms of section 302 or in which a regional court has imposed any sentence, it is brought to the notice of the provincial or local division having jurisdiction or any judge thereof that the proceedings in which the sentence was imposed were not in accordance with justice, such court or judge shall have the same powers in respect of such proceedings as if the record thereof had been laid before such court or judge in terms of section 303 or this section'.

2. The accused persons were arrested and charged by the police. The police released them on police bail. The prosecutor fixed an admission of guilt fine for the accused. The accused paid the admission of guilt fine. The accused appeared before court and the magistrate struck off roll the case.

3. The magistrate is of the view that the proceedings were not in accordance with justice for the following reasons:

'1. Only accused who were summoned or issued with notice to appear can admit guilt and pay fine without appearing before court. Arrested accused must appear before court before they are transferred from criminal court record book to the record book prepared for admissions of guilt.

2. Cases where accused admit guilt extra judicially are reserved only for petty crimes.

3. Cases where accused are arrested are prima facie serious offenses.

4. Maximum fines for offences in respect of which all accused were charged is R100 000.00 (One Hundred Thousand rand) and a maximum term of imprisonment is two (2) years imprisonment, and in no way this offence can be regardless as petty.

5. By virtue of seriousness of the offence and for the fact that they were arrested and therefore did not fall under section 57 but under section 57A accused were entitled to have legal representation explained to them as serious prejudice could result so they could make uniformed decisions.

4. The Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions (OPP) in a memo supports

the view of the magistrate that the proceedings are reviewable as they were not in accordance with justice in that the provisions of section 57 (1) (a) and (b) of the CPA were not complied with because no summons in terms of s54 of the CPA nor a written notice in terms of s56 of the CPA was issued. It resulted, submits the DPP in neither s57 nor s57A of the CPA being complied with.

5. The review section 304 (4) refers to a criminal case in which a magistrate's court has imposed a sentence. Although the admission of guilt fine was fixed by the prosecutor. Section 57(6) provides that the Clerk of Court shall enter the essential particulars in the criminal record book for admissions of guilt,

whereupon the accused concerned shall be deemed to have been convicted and sentenced by the court in the respect of the offences

in question.

6. An arrested person can be released from the arrest and be issued with summons or be issued with a notice to appear or be released on bail. If the offence he faces qualifies for a fixing of admission of guilt fine, it may be fixed for him. Thereafter, the fact that the accused were initially arrested is no impediment for fixing an admission of guilt fine.

7. The accused faced a charge reading as follows:

'The accused is guilty of the offence of contravening s50 read with s90 of the National Land Transport Act 5 of 2009. (Failure to display route permit).

In that or about….the said accused did operate a road based public transport service, upon a public road... in the district of .... The accused being the operator of a vehicle.... without displaying the permit authorising such transportation in terms of the National Land Transport Act'>.

8. The essence of the charge is to operate a road based public transport service on a specified public road by operating a specified vehicle without displaying a permit authorising such transportation. The essence of the charge is summarised in brackets to be 'Failure to display route permit'. Section 50(1) of National Land Transport Act 5 of 2009 (NLTA) provides that no person may operate a road based public transport service unless he or she is the holder of an operating licence or permit issued for the vehicle concerned.

9. Section 50 does not require a display of the operating licence or permit. Therefore, the purported charge is not in accordance with the provisions of s50 of NLTA. It is not known whether the accused were admitting failing to display the operating licence or permit, or they were admitting

operating a road based public transport service without being the holder of an operating licence or permit.

10. As a result, the proceedings relating to the under mentioned accused

are found not to have been in accordance with justice. They are reviewed and set aside, namely:

1. Thulisile Rachel Zulu case B424/22 2. S W Buthelezi case A467/22 3. SM Ngubane case A468/22 4. W B Mbatha case A469/22 5. MA Ngobese case A470/22 6. TA Magwaza case A471/22 7. L Ntombela case A472/22 8. MT Zuma case A473/22 9. E T Shabalala case A474/22 10. MP Mbatha case A425/22 11. WP Khumalo case A426/22 12. BE Magwaza case A427/22 13. SK Shangase case A428/22 14. K J Ngcobo case A429/22 15. H B Mlotshwa case A430/22 16. BA Khumalo case A431/22 17. CI Thwala case B432/22 18. CP Ndlovu case B433/22 19. B N Masango case B434/22 20. M J Mahaye case B435/22 21. ME Ngobese case 436/22 22. SR Zungu case 437/22

Mngadi

J

I agree, it is so ordered.

P Bezuidenhout J

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

National Land Transport Act 5 of 2009

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

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.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.