---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

CA NO.:173/04

In the matter between:

THE STATE

AND

ISAAC KAIRA

REVIEW JUDGMENT

MOKGOATLHENG AJ

JUDGMENT

Mokgoatlheng AJ:

[1] This is a review of case no. 276/04 referred in terms of Section 304 of Act 51/1977 emanating form the Magisterial district of Swartruggens. The case was heard before Magistrate A Kleynhans.

[2] The accused was on the 7 July 2004 convicted of the offence of contravening section 12(a) read with section 12(a), 69, 89(1) and 89(6) of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996 in that:-

“Dat die beskuldige op of omtrent die dag van Julie 2004 te of naby Jan Van Riebeeck Straat te Swartruggens n plek/ openbare pad in die voormelde distrik, wederegtelik motorvoertuig Mazda 323 bestuur het sonder die magting of ooreenkoms die voorwaardes van n lisensie, wat ingevolge hoofstuk iv van Wet 93 van 1996 aan hom uitgereik is, of van n document wat by die toepassing van genoemde hoofstuk geag word on a lisensie te wees”.

[3] The Magistrate imposed a fine of R300.00 deferred until the 31^st July 2004 for payment at the clerk of the Criminal Court, Swartruggens. The accused approached the clerk of the court and advised him that he had no money to pay the fine. As no alternative sentence to the fine of R300.00 was imposed i.e a period of imprisonment, which may be put into operation, the sentence in the absence of the accused paying the fine is impossible to enforce.

[4] The accused pleaded guilty to the charge. Ex facie the record on page 1, the record reads:

“SP: Put charge to the accused

ACC: I understand this charge and plead guilty thereto.

SP: Sec 112(1)(a)

COURT: Accused is found guilty on his plea”.

[5] There is no indication whatsoever that the Magistrate applied the provisions of section 112 (1)(b), in fact ex facie the record the provisions of section 112(1)(b) were not applied.

In the premises the proceedings were not in accordance with justice and these proceedings are set aside in terms of section 304 2 (c) (iii). The conviction is quashed.

_____________________

R D MOKGOATLHENG

ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

I agree

________________

A A LANDMAN

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

DATED : 18 NOVEMBER 2004

---