South Africa Case Law

S v Siduna and Others (HC 14/23)

S v Siduna and Others (HC 14/23) [2023] ZANWHC 201; 2025 (1) SACR 108 (NWM) (31 October 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC 14/23

Judges

Petersen, Reddy

The court found that the sentences imposed in five of the six matters were incompetent, as section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not permit direct imprisonment or fines exceeding R5000. The offences in those matters were serious and should not have been disposed of under section 112(1)(a). In the sixth matter, the fine imposed exceeded the statutory cap. The Adjustment of Fines Act does not apply to section 112(1)(a) proceedings. The sentences in all six matters were reviewed and set aside, with a competent sentence imposed in the sixth matter. The judgment was directed to the…

Source excerpt

• Section 112 1 A Criminal Procedure Act
• Gross Irregularity
• Competent Sentence
• Adjustment Of Fines Act
• Immigration Act Offences
• Road Traffic Act Offence

S v Muridzo; S v Ramafikeng (325/2022;324/2022)

S v Muridzo; S v Ramafikeng (325/2022;324/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 32 (20 February 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

325/2022;324/2022

Judges

Le Grange, Henney

The sentences imposed by the magistrate in both cases—fines with alternative imprisonment, without a direct term of imprisonment—were incompetent and not in accordance with section 17(e) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. The law requires that a sentence for dealing in drugs must include a term of imprisonment, which may be wholly or partially suspended, and may be coupled with a fine. The review court is obliged to set aside the incompetent sentences and replace them with sentences that comply with the statutory requirements, even if this results in a more onerous sentence for the accuse…

Source excerpt

• Drug Sentencing
• Drugs And Drug Trafficking Act
• Competent Sentence
• Review Powers
• Imprisonment And Fine

S v Mofokeng (R08/2022)

S v Mofokeng (R08/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 84 (29 April 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R08/2022

Judges

Daniso, Mpama

The High Court confirmed the conviction for attempted rape but set aside a 15-year sentence as incompetent and remitted the matter for fresh sentencing.

• Sentencing Irregularity
• Minimum Sentences
• Attempted Rape
• Competent Sentence
• Sexual Offences Against Children
• Criminal-sentencing

S v Willemse (B14/2015)

S v Willemse (B14/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 28 (18 March 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

B14/2015

Judge

Binns-Ward

On special review, the High Court held that a wholly suspended sentence of imprisonment was not competent under s 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

• Malicious Injury To Property
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Competent Sentence
• Suspended Sentence
• Criminal-procedure-act-section-112
• Guilty-plea-procedure

S v Ramaotsa (A182/2014)

S v Ramaotsa (A182/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 333 (27 March 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A182/2014

Judges

M J Teffo, E Makgoba

The High Court confirmed a magistrate’s conviction and sentence for drug possession, holding that the R1,200 fine was competent under section 112(1)(a).

• Drug Possession
• Competent Sentence
• Magistrates Discretion
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Criminal-law
• Drug-possession

Ngxongo v S (A115/13)

Ngxongo v S (A115/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 65 (21 February 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A115/13

Judges

MJ Teffo, AML Phatudi

The High Court set aside a magistrate’s sentence on special review after finding it exceeded the statutory maximum and used unclear suspension conditions.

• Road Traffic Offences
• Sentencing Irregularity
• Suspended Sentence
• Competent Sentence
• Sentencing-irregularity
• Special-review

S v Sethoka (414/2010)

S v Sethoka (414/2010) [2010] ZAFSHC 128 (26 August 2010)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

414/2010

Judges

Cillié, Jordaan

The High Court set aside an incompetent sentence for dealing in dagga and remitted the matter to the magistrate for resentencing in line with the statute.

• Sentencing
• Drug Offences
• Competent Sentence
• Suspension Of Sentence
• Drug-offences
• Criminal-review

S v Ramaketekete (54/2009)

S v Ramaketekete (54/2009) [2009] ZAFSHC 13 (12 February 2009)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

54/2009

Judges

K.J. Moloi, M.B. Molemela

High Court review of a guilty plea sentence under section 112(1)(a) of the CPA. The court confirmed the conviction but replaced an incompetent suspended prison term with a fine or suspended imprisonment.

• Immigration Act Offence
• Sentencing Powers Of Magistrate
• Competent Sentence
• Review Procedure
• Criminal-law
• Sentencing

S v Mchunu (159/2007)

S v Mchunu (159/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 32 (30 March 2007)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

159/2007

Judges

C.H.G. Van der Merwe, G.A. Hattingh

The High Court set aside a magistrate’s sentence for dealing in dagga because it was not competent under the Act, and remitted the matter for fresh sentencing.

• Drugs And Drug Trafficking Act
• Sentencing
• Competent Sentence
• Criminal-law
• Drugs-and-drug-trafficking-act
• Sentence-review

S v Sephuka (1105/2006)

S v Sephuka (1105/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 62 (14 December 2006)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1105/2006

Judges

H.M. Musi, Kruger

Automatic review of a criminal sentence for dealing in dagga. The High Court held the fine-only sentence was incompetent and remitted the matter for resentencing.

• Sentencing
• Review Proceedings
• Dealing In Dagga
• Competent Sentence
• Criminal-sentencing
• Judicial-review