S v Le Grange

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judgment Date: 16 November 1961
• Citation: 1962 (1) SA 564 (T)

S v Le Grange
1962 (1) SA 564 (T)

1962 (1) SA p564

Citation	1962 (1) SA 564 (T)
Court	Transvaal Provincial Division
Judge	De Wet JP and Ludorf J
Heard	November 10, 1961
Judgment	November 16, 1961

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal law — Traffic offences — Contravention of sec. 138 (2) H of Ord. 18 of 1957 (T) — What must be alleged and proved — Person in lawful charge of vehicle deviating from mandate — Not a contravention.

Headnote : Kopnota

On a charge of contravening section 138 (2) of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 18 of 1957, the State must allege and prove that the accused drove a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner, or of the person who is in lawful charge of the vehicle. Where the person who is in lawful charge of the vehicle deviates from his mandate in regard to the use of the car he cannot be said to contravene the section.

1962 (1) SA p565

Case Information

Appeal from a conviction in a magistrate's court. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

R. L. Selvan, for the appellant, was not called upon.

H. van Rensburg, for the State, referred to R v Leguabe, 1949 (4) SA 871; R v Kuyler, 1960 (3) SA 834.

Selvan, in reply: Leguabe's case was wrongly decided. According to the reasoning in Kuyler's case, the Court in Leguabe's case lost sight of the fact that the section in the Ordinance used the words 'or person in lawful charge of a vehicle.' See further R v Mbisi, 1950 (1) SA 219; R v Moodley, 1956 (1) P.H. O.8. A

Cur. adv. vult. B

Postea (November 16th).

Judgment

C De Wet, J.P.:

The appellant is a detective constable. It is common cause that he was given the custody and control of a motor-car which he was entitled to use subject to the directions of his superior officer and subject to police regulations. I shall assume that the...