S v Mathabeni

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Ebrahim ADJP and Sangoni J
• Judgment Date: 06 September 2007
• Citation: 2009 (1) SACR 421 (Ck)
• Docket Number: CA&R 26/07
• Hearing Date: 26 April 2007
• Counsel: Automatic review. The facts appear from the judgment of Sangoni J, in which Ebrahim ADJP concurred.
• Court: Ciskei High Court

Sangoni J:

[1] This matter came before me for automatic review. Before the B magistrate at Zwelitsha, the accused pleaded guilty to the charge of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The questioning in terms of s 112(1)(b) of Act 51 of 1977 (the Act) followed. The accused was convicted of assault and sentenced to pay a fine of R1 800 or to undergo six months' imprisonment suspended conditionally for three years.

C [2] The accused stated that he quarrelled with the complainant over an issue involving cattle which he had driven and left to graze not far from the complainant's home. The most relevant part of his account of the events is the following:

She then started to insult me and I asked why he did that. I then D approached her without intention to assault her and when I tried to clap her she bit my left thumb. I then decided not to withdraw and turn around her and bite her on the left cheek. She then released my thumb as I bit her. I was carrying a stick and I tripped her. A certain man arrived and held me down and told me to leave complainant. At that time complainant was shouting. It is how it ended and she left saying E she was going to lay a charge against me. That is all.

[3] The questioning continued as follows:

Q: Were you justified to do what you did to complainant.

A: It was not justified but I was angry because complainant insulted F me.

Q: Where did it happen.

A: At NONESI locality in FRANKFORT ADMINISTRATIVE AREA.

Q: There is allegation that you intended to cause complainant grievous bodily harm.

A: No it was G not my intention to cause her grievous bodily harm I just punished her after he bit my finger.

Q: Mr MGANDELA: Accused pleads guilty to 'assault'.

[4] It is apposite to record the entire response of the magistrate to the query raised. The query was about whether the magistrate should not H have entered a plea of not guilty, given the fact that the elements of the charge put to the accused had not been established during the questioning.

[5] The magistrate's reply goes as follows:

I Accused was facing a charge of Assault with intention to cause grievous bodily harm.

He pleaded guilty on 22nd June 2007 to the charge. I then questioned accused in terms of section 112(1)(b) Act 51/1977. I concluded that from his answers that he was admitting that he was guilty of unlawful and intentional application of force to complainant on the date and J place alleged in the charge.

Sangoni J

He denied one allegation in the charge, which also is element of the A charge, namely, specific intent to cause grievous bodily...