IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
Case No: A212/2017
                                                                                                             Date: 25/4/2017
High Court Reference No: 88/17 
Special Review Case No:     A372/15
  
Magistrate
LESEDI (held at HEIDELBERG)
THE STATE V LERATO NHLAPO
and
High Court Reference No: 90/17 
Special Review Case No:     A305/15
  
Magistrate
LESEDI (held at HEIDELBERG)
THE STATE V OCKERT JOHANNES VAN HEERDEN
and
High Court Reference No: 91/ 17 
Special   Review   Case   No:   A413/15
  
MAGISTRATE
LESEDI (held at HEIDELBERG)
THE STATE V PAPI JACOB MOFOKENG
REVIEW JUDGMENT
POTTERILL   J
[1] In terms of section 304(4) of the Criminal   Procedure   Act   51 of 1977   ("CPA")   three matters are before us on special review.
[2] In all these matters the same presiding officer held a summary enquiry in terms   of section 170(2) of the CPA, pursuant to accused, released   on   bail,   warned   to   appear and failed to do so.
[3] In case number A305/15 State v Ockert Johannes van Heerden the court convicted the accused of contravening section 170(1) of the CPA and sentenced the accused   to a fine of R100 or 30   (thirty)   days   imprisonment.
[4] In case number A413/15 State v Papi Jacob Mofokeng the court found the accused guilty of contravening section 170(1) of the CPA and sentenced   the accused to a   fine of R100 or 30   (thirty)   days   imprisonment.
[5] In case number A372/15 State v Lerato   Nhlapo the accused   was also found guilty   of contravening section 170(1) of the CPA and was cautioned and     discharged.
[6] All three the matters were sent on special review because the Magistrate incorrectly conducted   summary   enquiries   into the accused's   failure   to appear   on a     specified date. These enquiries were however incorrectly held in terms of section 170( 2)   of the CPA and the provisions of section   6 7 A of the CPA should have been applied.
[7] I agree with this submission. As found in S v Theko 2010 (2) SACR 339 (GNP) at paragraph [11] section 67A of the CPA criminalised the failure of   an accused   on bail to appear   or remain in attendance   on a date determined by the court.   Section   67 A accordingly does not empower a court to enquire in a   summary   manner   whether that section has been contravened. Section 170 is only applicable when an accused who was not in custody, and were not released on bail, failed to appear in       a court or to remain in attendance. The circumstances of these three matters accordingly fall under section   67 A and not section 170.
[8] The sentences imposed were not in accordance with justice.
[9] The convictions in all three of these matters, as well as the sentences are set     aside.
___________________
S. POTTERILL
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
I agree
___________________
S.S. MPHAHLELE 
JUDGE   OF THE HIGH   COURT