S v Dhludhla
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Judge | Milne JP, Miller J and Burne J |
| Judgment Date | 28 November 1967 |
| Citation | 1968 (1) SA 459 (N) |
| Hearing Date | 28 November 1967 |
| Court | Natal Provincial Division |
F Milne, J.P.:
This is a case of automatic review which was referred to the Full Court by the reviewing Judge. The accused was charged as follows:
'. . . with the offence of contraveing sec. 109 (2) (ii) of Ord. 21 of 1966 in that upon (or about) the 30th August, 1967, at or near Fort Durnford, on the Empangeni/Mtunzini main road and a public road . . . the said accused being the driver of a motor vehicle to wit, motor truck GG. 36539, did wrongfully and unlawfully pass other traffic proceeding in G the same direction upon the aforesaid public road, where the roadway of the said road is restricted to vehicles moving in one direction'.
The accused pleaded guilty to this charge and, after evidence was led by the State, he closed his case without calling or giving evidence. He was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of R100 with an alternative of 100 days' imprisonment.
H The reviewing Judge raised with the magistrate the question whether the accused was properly convicted upon this defective charge, more particularly in view of the positive allegation that the relevant portion of the roadway was restricted to vehicles moving in one direction, an allegation which, if true, would make the accused innocent of any offence under sec. 109 (2) of the Ordinance which reads thus:
'The driver of a vehicle shall not pass other traffic proceeding in the same direction on a public road when approaching -
Milne JP
the summit of a rise;
a curve; or
any other place,
where his view is so restricted that any such passing could create a hazard in relation to other traffic which might approach from the opposite direction, unless -
A he can do so without encroaching on the right-hand side of the roadway; or
the roadway of such road is restricted to vehicles moving in one direction.'
The magistrate, whilst acknowledging that the charge was defective, contended that the conviction was in order, by virtue of the provisions B of sec. 179 bis of the Criminal Code, because the evidence established the commission of an offence under the sub-section. He requested that the charge be suitably amended by this Court and referred to S v Mbatha, 1963 (4) SA 476 (N); R v Ntjoro, 1959 (4) SA 447 (T); R v Van Aardt, 1961 (1) SA 73 (T); S v Gani, 1965 (1) SA 222 (T). C Although in none of these cases, except Ntjoro's, was the charge amended by the Court to which they came on review or on appeal, the convictions were all confirmed, despited defects in the relative charges. It is clear from the judgments in these cases that the relative defects had not operated to the prejudice to the accused concerned. In the present case it is clear from the evidence that some person, whilst D driving a truck with the registration symbols GG 36539 on the road in question, which was not one which was restricted to vehicles moving in one direction, passed another vehicle proceeding in the same direction when approaching a rise and a corner, in circumstances which constituted the truck a danger to any traffic which might have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S v Rosenberg and Another
...of a verdict on an offence other than that charged. S. v Moloi Nyane, 1965 (2) SA 109; S. v Mayongo, 1968 (1) SA 443; S. v Dhludhla, 1968 (1) SA 459; S. v Slabbert, 1968 (3) SA 318. Alternatively the magistrate erred in holding that to 'manage the G 1972 (3) SA p92 tournament' constituted a......
-
S v Van Rensburg
...were proved in evidence. See, e.g., S. v. Moloinyane, 1965 (2) S.A. 109; S. v. Khan; S. v. Thabeta; 1966 (1) P.H. H234; S. v. Thludhla, 1968 (1) S.A. 459. In any case it cannot be said on the record that it was established beyond any reason- H able doubt that the complainant was in uniform ......
-
S v Mathope and Others
...nie die aanklag regstel nie." See also S v Gaba 1981 (3) SA 745 (0) at 752; R v Van Aardt 1961 C (1) SA 73 (T); S v Dhludhla 1968 (1) SA 459 (N). In the circumstances it is not necessary to consider the merits of the case, although the State might also have encountered some difficulties on ......
-
S v Mathope and Others
...nie die aanklag regstel nie.' C See also S v Gaba 1981 (3) SA 745 (O) at 752; R v Van Aardt 1961 (1) SA 73 (T); S v Dhludhla 1968 (1) SA 459 (N). In the circumstances it is not necessary to consider the merits of the case, although the State might also have encountered some difficulties on ......
-
S v Rosenberg and Another
...of a verdict on an offence other than that charged. S. v Moloi Nyane, 1965 (2) SA 109; S. v Mayongo, 1968 (1) SA 443; S. v Dhludhla, 1968 (1) SA 459; S. v Slabbert, 1968 (3) SA 318. Alternatively the magistrate erred in holding that to 'manage the G 1972 (3) SA p92 tournament' constituted a......
-
S v Van Rensburg
...were proved in evidence. See, e.g., S. v. Moloinyane, 1965 (2) S.A. 109; S. v. Khan; S. v. Thabeta; 1966 (1) P.H. H234; S. v. Thludhla, 1968 (1) S.A. 459. In any case it cannot be said on the record that it was established beyond any reason- H able doubt that the complainant was in uniform ......
-
S v Mathope and Others
...nie die aanklag regstel nie." See also S v Gaba 1981 (3) SA 745 (0) at 752; R v Van Aardt 1961 C (1) SA 73 (T); S v Dhludhla 1968 (1) SA 459 (N). In the circumstances it is not necessary to consider the merits of the case, although the State might also have encountered some difficulties on ......
-
S v Mathope and Others
...nie die aanklag regstel nie.' C See also S v Gaba 1981 (3) SA 745 (O) at 752; R v Van Aardt 1961 (1) SA 73 (T); S v Dhludhla 1968 (1) SA 459 (N). In the circumstances it is not necessary to consider the merits of the case, although the State might also have encountered some difficulties on ......