Rex v Standard Tea and Coffee Co (Pty) Ltd and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Centlivres CJ, Greenberg JA, Schreiner JA, Hoexter JA, and Fagan JA
• Judgment Date: 25 September 1951
• Citation: 1951 (4) SA 412 (A)
• Hearing Date: 18 September 1951
• Court: Appellate Division

F Greenberg JA:

The appellants were prosecuted in the magisrate's court Johannesburg on a charge sheet which it is necessary to set out in full; it reads:

'That the accused are guilty of the offence of contravening sec. 5 (1) (a) of Proc. 205 of 1946 (War Measure 55 of 1946), read with sec. 3 (1) (e) of the said War Measure and further read with para. (a) of G Government Notice 897 of the 6th May, 1949 (38 counts);

In that on or about or during the periods set out in column two of the Schedule annexed hereto and forming part hereof (hereinafter referred to as the Schedule) and at or near Fordsburg in the district of Johannesburg, the said accused did wrongfully and unlawfully supply tea to the persons or firms mentioned in the third column of the said Schedule, which persons or firms are dealers in tea, in quantities H exceeding in the aggregate during any one month, a quantity equal to 75 per cent of the average monthly quantity supplied by them to the respective persons or firms set out in column three of the Schedule during the period of six months which ended on 31st March, 1949 - to wit did supply the persons or firms set out in column three of the Schedule with the quantities of tea set out in column four of the Schedule during the months set out in column two of the Schedule opposite their respective names whereas the maximum quantities that could have lawfully been supplied to the said persons or firms set out in column three of the Schedule during the months set out in column two of the Schedule, are as set out in column five of the Schedule opposite their respective names.'

Greenberg JA

It is common cause that 'sec. 3 (1) (e)' in the opening sentence should read 'sec. 3 (1) (i)' and the charge has been so treated in argument before us. It is unnecessary to refer to the Schedule attached to the charge. The appellants were each convicted on 16 counts, and, certain of A the counts having been taken together for the purpose of sentence, were sentenced to pay fines totalling £450 each, with an alternative of imprisonment in the case of the second appellant. The first appellant was also ordered, in terms of a regulation, to pay an amount to the Director of Food Supplies and Distribution.

B In the grounds of appeal a number of points were raised, some of which were advanced in argument in the Transvaal Provincial Division which dismissed the appeal but gave leave to appeal to this Court. In argument before us two points were relied upon, one of which had not C been raised either in the magistrate's court or in the grounds of appeal or before the Provincial Division.

Before dealing with the points it is necessary to cite sec. 3 (1) (i)...