S v Hlatswayo and Others

JurisdictionSouth Africa
Citation1969 (2) SA 497 (N)

S v Hlatswayo and Others
1969 (2) SA 497 (N)

1969 (2) SA p497


Citation

1969 (2) SA 497 (N)

Court

Natal Provincial Division

Judge

Harcourt J, Friedman J and Leon J

Heard

March 5, 1969

Judgment

March 31, 1969

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal law — Stock theft — Compensatory fines — Imposition D of — Rider or qualification which should be appended to order where one or more accused convicted, or may in future be convicted, in relation to the same stock — Apportionment of fines — Determining factor — Act 57 of 1959, sec. 11 (1) — Utility of the provisions of sec. 16 (1) criticised.

Headnote : Kopnota

E In cases of stock theft in which a number of accused are convicted of stealing the same stock and compensatory fines are imposed on them jointly and severally, the rider or qualification should be added that, if one or more pays, the other or others should be pro tanto absolved from payment of such compensatory fines.

When one of the accused, frequently the main thief, is convicted and the probability exists that another or others may later be convicted of F theft of, or other dealing with, the stock in one or more of the manners described in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) of section 11 (1) of the Stock Theft Act, 57 of 1959, the qualification or rider should read 'Should any person or persons be hereafter convicted of any of the offences described in section 11 (1) of Act 57 of 1959, in relation to the same stock or produce of such stock and be sentenced to pay a compensatory fine or fines in respect thereof, the fine hereby imposed G is to be regarded as imposed jointly and severally with such other person or persons and, if one or more pay the fine or fines in whole or in part, the other or others are to be pro tanto absolved'.

On the question as to a proper apportionment or quantification of the compensatory fines to be imposed upon principal thieves and upon other accused persons found guilty of the lesser permissible verdicts described in section 11 (1) of the Act, the crucial determining factor should be the degree of participation in the theft which caused the 'loss' or 'depreciation'to the complainant. This degree should be assessed in a wide sense.

H The provisions of section 15 (1) of the Stock Theft Act, 57 of 1959, afford little if any advantage which could not be easily obtained in practice by the employment of the machinery of section 357 of Act 56 of 1955. If the evidence suggests that a thief in any given case is well able to pay the value of the 'loss' or 'depreciation', then the complainant might easily request the State prosecutor to apply for a compensatory order in terms of that section.

The utility of the provisions of section 15 (1) further criticised.

Case Information

Argument on review.

1969 (2) SA p498

T. P. McNally, for the State.

I. H. Combrink, for the accused, at the request of the Court.

Cur adv vult.

Postea (March 31st). A

Judgment

Harcourt, J.:

This is a review matter in which the proceedings in four different trials are involved. The trials arose out of the alleged theft of two Friesland heifers, the property of complainant, one Cross The two thefts were alleged and proved to have taken place on an unspecified B date in July, 1968, and on 1st August, 1968, respectively. In regard to each theft a trial was instituted in which four persons and seven persons respectively were charged with stock theft in terms of the provisions of the Stock Theft Act, 57 of 1959. In each case, the first two accused, two Bantu men by the surname of Hlatswayo, pleaded guilty C (in one case, together with one of the other accused) and the remaining accused persons pleaded not guilty. In each case a separation of trials was effected and the case against the two Hlatswayo men (and the one other accused in the one case) was heard and decided and the accused were sentenced. Thereafter, in the first case, that is relating to the D theft in July, the remaining two accused were separately charged, and, despite their pleas of not guilty, one was found guilty of stock theft and the other, one Pewula Khubeka, was found guilty of the offence described in sec. 11 (1) (d) of the Act, namely,

'knowingly disposing of, or knowingly assisting in the disposal of, stock or produce which has been stolen . . . '.

E In the other case, relating to the theft on 1st August, the charge was withdrawn against two of the remaining four accused and thereafter continued against the remaining two accused (Pewula Khubeka and another) each of whom pleaded guilty to, and was found guilty of, a contravention of the said sec. 11 (1) (d) of the Act.

F The magistrate sentenced the various accused and imposed compensatory fines on all those found guilty, which fines he linked with alternative periods of imprisonment. The value of each of the heifers in question, was established as being R60.

The punishment and fines imposed in relation to the theft of the heifer stolen in July were as follows: M. Hlatswayo - 18 months' imprisonment

G 'and ordered to pay a compensatory fine of R60 jointly and severally with Piet Hlatswayo (No. 2) and any other person or persons who might be convicted of theft of the beast in question or in default a further forty-five days' imprisonment'.

Piet Hlatswayo was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment and ordered to H pay a compensatory fine of R60 jointly and severally with M. Hlatswayo (No.1) in terms identical with those set out above.

In the trial of the other two accused alleged to have stolen the heifer during July, they were each sentenced to ten months' imprisonment of which a period of three months was suspended in the case of the second accused, the said Pewula Khubeka. Each of these two accused was ordered to pay a compensatory fine of R60 jointly and severally with the other of them

'and any other person ordered to pay a compensatory fine for the beast in question, or in default, a further thirty days' imprisonment'.

1969 (2) SA p499

Harcourt J

In regard to the heifer stolen on 1st August, the two Hlatswayos and their co-accused who had pleaded guilty (one Hlongwane), were sentenced to 15 months', 12 months', and two years' imprisonment respectively and they were ordered to pay

'a compensatory fine of R60 jointly and severall with (the other two of A them) and any other persons who may be ordered to pay a compensatory fine for the beast in question or in default, a further thirty days' imprisonment'.

In the separated trial relating to this heifer, the two accused who had pleaded not guilty (the same persons as had pleaded guilty in the second case relating to the heifer stolen during July) were separately tried and on conviction of the offence described in sec. 11 (1) (d) of the B Act, were each sentenced to six months' imprisonment of which three months was suspended and in addition they were ordered

'to pay a compensatory fine of R60 jointly and severally with any person ordered to pay a compensatory fine for the beast in question or in default, a further thirty days' imprisonment'.

C Thus, in regard to the first heifer, four persons were ordered jointly and severally to pay R60 and in regard to the second, five persons were ordered jointly and severally to pay R60.

When the first of this series of cases came on review, as review No. 3764/68, it was confirmed on review by a Judge who was unaware of the D fate of the other cases. He has, for reasons which will emerge later in this judgment, authorised the withdrawal of the certificate in that case to enable it to be dealt with in conjunction with the other three cases. When these three other cases came on review, the form of the compensatory fines was queried on two main grounds namely:

1.

that each of such fines was not in order, since there was no E mention therein that should one or more of the persons ordered to pay such compensatory fines pay them, the other or others were to be pro tanto absolved; and

2.

that prima facie, it appeared that there should probably have been an allocation or apportionment of only portion of the value of the beast in question in the compensatory fines imposed upon those of the accused who F were found guilty only of the offence mentioned in sec. 11 (1) (d) of the Act with consequent variation to the form of the order for a compensatory fine imposed upon the principal thieves to accommodate such an allocation or apportionment. The magistrate was referred to certain G cases in regard to these points, including particularly those of R v Frans, 1924 T.P.D. 507 and S v Sebia and Another, 1963 (1) SA 81 (T). The magistrate, in his reply to this query, defended the form of the orders made for the payment of compensatory fines and indicated that he was unaware of the decision in Sebia's case and that the decision in H Frans' case was not available to him.

The matter was then referred to the Attorney-General for his views and these were provided in a detailed and most helpful memorandum. The magistrate was asked for his further report upon the matters raised by the Attorney-General and submitted a detailed and able reply which has merited close attention. The matters discussed by the Attorney-General and by the magistrate will be canvassed in this judgment.

1969 (2) SA p500

Harcourt J

In view of the precise juristic nature of compensatory fines under the Act and because of the very considerable and detailed difficulties arising from the facts of the four cases, the matter was set down for hearing before a Full Court. When the matter was called, Mr. McNally A appeared for the State, and Mr. Combrink appeared, at the request of the Court, to argue the case for all the accused persons. We are indebted to counsel for the thorough and able arguments presented by them and for their assistance to the Court.

B Mr. Combrink accepted that in regard to all...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Nichas & Son (Pty) Ltd v Papenfus
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...noem nie op 'n suiwer kommissiebasis bereken kan word nie aangesien die eiser sonder teenspraak beweer dat hy van tyd tot tyd spesifieke 1969 (2) SA p497 Erasmus bedrae aan die verweerder voorgeskiet het wat van sy kommissie afgegaan het. Sonder dat dit nodig is om die beslissings te bespre......
  • S v Ngcongo en Andere
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...met die praktiese toepassing van hierdie artikel, en waarna breedvoerig verwys word deur HARCOURT, R., in S. v. Hlatswayo and Others, 1969 (2) SA 497 (N), besluit het om hierdie bepalings te herroep en in hul plek slegs die voorsittende beampte die plig op te lê om 'n klaer wat na skuldigbe......
2 cases
  • Nichas & Son (Pty) Ltd v Papenfus
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...noem nie op 'n suiwer kommissiebasis bereken kan word nie aangesien die eiser sonder teenspraak beweer dat hy van tyd tot tyd spesifieke 1969 (2) SA p497 Erasmus bedrae aan die verweerder voorgeskiet het wat van sy kommissie afgegaan het. Sonder dat dit nodig is om die beslissings te bespre......
  • S v Ngcongo en Andere
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...met die praktiese toepassing van hierdie artikel, en waarna breedvoerig verwys word deur HARCOURT, R., in S. v. Hlatswayo and Others, 1969 (2) SA 497 (N), besluit het om hierdie bepalings te herroep en in hul plek slegs die voorsittende beampte die plig op te lê om 'n klaer wat na skuldigbe......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT