---

CA28/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION

THE STATE

VS

DONALD MAJORO

REVIEW

Pako AJ: This case came before my brother Pistor AJ on automatic review. The accused was charged in count 1 with crimen injuria and in count 2 with assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He was convicted in respect of both counts. The conviction is in order. The sentence imposed, according to the charge sheet, is ten months imprisonment.

The reviewing judge requested the presiding officer to indicate whether the two counts were taken as one for purpose of sentence. If the two counts were not taken together for purpose of sentence, the presiding officer must give an indication in respect of which count was the accused sentenced to 10 months imprisonment and what the sentence was in respect of the other count.

The reply from the presiding officer is as follows:-

“..... The sentence was intended to mean that the accused is sentenced to ten (10) months imprisonment on each count, both to run concurrently”.

-2-

In that event I have no problems with the sentence which the presiding officer intended to impose in respect of both counts. The proceedings are in accordance with justice.

In the result, I make the following order:

1. The conviction is confirmed.

2. The sentence imposed by the presiding officer is set aside, and the following sentence is substituted therefor:-

“Count 1: Ten (10) months imprisonment

Count 2: Ten (10) months imprisonment

The sentences in count 1 and 2 shall run concurrently.”

O.A. PAKO

ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

I agree

M.M . LEEUW

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

DATED: 09 MAY 2002

---