THE STATE VS ERIC MZAMANI MASWANGANYI 

NOT REPORTABLE   A469/07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION), 
DATE: 4 JUNE 2007
Case no:  A513/2006
Magistrates Serial no: 08/2007 
High Court Ref no: 344
REVIEW JUDGMENT 
BOTHA J: 
The accused was found guilty of assault with the intent to do grievous bodily harm and sentenced to R4 000.00 or twelve months' imprisonment. 
The accused was found guilty on his plea of guilty. 
I queried the sentence on the basis that it effectively amounted to a sentence of 12 months imprisonment. 
The Magistrate submitted reasons in which he justified the sentence. 
I

2 
The state advocates, in their memorandum, question the proceedings in terms of section 112(1 )(b) of Act 51 of 1977. They contend that it does not appear form the accused's own words that he admitted the elements of the offence. 
A reading of the interrogation shows that the accused merely replied in the affirmative to leading questions. If regard is had to cases like S v Mkhize 1978(1) SA 264N at 268 A-B, S v Phundula 1978(4) SA 855T at 861C and s v Mkhize 1981 (3) SA 585 N at 586 H it is clear that the court must elicit from the accused in his own words the facts from which it can be inferred that he admits the elements of the offence. 
Accordingly I agree with the state advocates that there was no proper compliance with section 112(1)(b). In terms of section 312 of Act 51 of 1977 the matter must be remitted to the Magistrate so that a proper enquiry can be held. 
The following order is made: 
1.	The conviction and sentence are set aside. 
2.	The matter is remitted to the Magistrate for compliance with section 112(1)(b) of Act 51 of 1977. 

C BOTHA 
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT 

I agree 
FJ JOOSTE 
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT