South Africa Case Law

S v Bolae (R79/2018)

S v Bolae (R79/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 203 (19 September 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R79/2018

Judges

Mhlambi, Molitsoane

The court found that the accused did not admit all the elements of the offence in his guilty plea, specifically regarding his awareness and the technical aspects required for conviction under section 59 of the National Road Traffic Act. The magistrate failed to ensure that the accused admitted the recorded speed, the proper functioning of the speed measuring device, and the competence of the traffic operator, as required by State v Phuzi. Consequently, the proceedings were not in accordance with justice, and both the conviction and sentence must be set aside. The Director of Public Prosecutio…

Source excerpt

• Road Traffic Offences
• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Speeding
• Section 112 1 B Inquiry

Rupiya v S (03/2017)

Rupiya v S (03/2017) [2017] ZANWHC 85 (15 December 2017)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

03/2017

Judges

Kgoele, Gutta

High Court review set aside guilty-plea convictions because the section 112(1)(b) inquiry was too leading and did not secure clear admissions of all offence elements.

• Plea Procedure
• Section 112 1 B Inquiry
• Conviction On Guilty Plea
• Elements Of Offence
• Review Of Magistrate Decision
• Criminal-procedure

S v Mhlongo (HC A1665/10)

S v Mhlongo (HC A1665/10) [2012] ZANWHC 1 (26 January 2012)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC A1665/10

Judges

A.M. Kgoele, R.D. Hendricks

The High Court set aside a conviction and sentence because the section 112(1)(b) plea inquiry failed to establish key elements of reckless driving.

• Reckless Driving
• Negligent Driving
• Section 112 1 B Inquiry
• Plea Procedure
• Conviction And Sentence
• Section-112-inquiry

S v Mokgou (11/11)

S v Mokgou (11/11) [2011] ZANWHC 36 (22 August 2011)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

11/11

Judges

Kgoele, Hendricks

The High Court found that the presiding officer failed to properly conduct the section 112(1)(b) inquiry, as he did not adequately question the accused regarding the elements of unlawfulness and intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The record showed that the accused's explanation did not establish all the elements of the offence, and the presiding officer's subsequent concession confirmed the procedural defects. The conviction and sentence were therefore invalid and could not stand. The matter was referred back to the magistrate's court for a new hearing before a different presiding officer.

Source excerpt

• Section 112 1 B Inquiry
• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Plea Procedure
• Conviction And Sentence Review

S v Molefe, S v Mothudi, S v Matunda; S v Motona (90/08, B115/08, A207/08, B147/08, P300/08)

S v Molefe, S v Mothudi, S v Matunda; S v Motona (90/08, B115/08, A207/08, B147/08, P300/08) [2009] ZANWHC 6 (19 March 2009)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

90/08, B115/08, A207/08, B147/08, P300/08

Judges

A. M. Kgoele, R. D. Hendricks

The High Court set aside four guilty-plea convictions after finding the section 112(1)(b) inquiries were inadequate, leading, and legally insufficient.

• Section 112 1 B Inquiry
• Plea Of Guilty
• Admission Of Facts
• Leading Questions
• Conviction On Alternative Count
• Section-112-inquiry