---

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION)

Magistrates ref. no: C884/2001 (KEMPTON PARK)

High Court Review No:1071/2001

Magistrate’s Serial No:78/2001

DATE:05/09/2001

THE STATE

versus

JOHN SEKATE PHAHLMOHLAKA.......................................Accused

REVIEW JUDGMENT

WILLIS J:

This case was originally referred to my sister Snyders J on 31st August, 2001 for special review in terms of Section 304 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 51 of 1977, as amended. She is away on compassionate leave, her husband being seriously ill. I have been asked to consider this review in her absence.

The accused was charged with contravening Section31(1) of Act 99 of 1998 (Failure to comply with a maintenance order). He pleaded guilty and was duly questioned in terms of section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 51 of 1977, as amended.

I am satisfied that the accused was fairly and correctly convicted.

The learned magistrate intended to sentence the accused to pay a fine of two thousand rand or, in default of payment of the fine, to eighty days imprisonment wholly suspended upon certain unexceptional, indeed standard conditions

The learned magistrate advises that she mistakenly recorded “80 months” instead of the “80 days” she had intended. She has asked that the sentence be corrected to reflect her true intentions. Her intended sentence seems indeed appropriate. I am happy to accede to her request.

The following order is made:

1. The conviction is confirmed;

2. The sentence is altered such that the words “ eighty (80) months imprisonment” appearing therein are to read “ eighty (80) days imprisonment”.

3. The remaining wording of the sentence, including that relating to the conditions upon which the sentence is wholly suspended, continues unaltered.

DATED AT JOHANNESBURG THIS 5th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2001.

N.P. WILLIS

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

I agree.

C.J. CLAASSEN

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

---