South Africa Case Law

Church of Holly Ghost v Mokoena (2025/128948)

Church of Holly Ghost v Mokoena (2025/128948) [2025] ZALCC 26 (17 June 2025)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

2025/128948

Judge

Ncube

The court found that the Church failed to establish reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The grounds raised were either unsupported by evidence or irrelevant to the real issue, which was whether Mr Mokoena qualifies as an occupier under ESTA. The court relied on the Constitutional Court’s purposive interpretation in Klaase, rejecting the Church’s argument that section 6(5) requires established practice. The Church did not provide documentary proof of Mr Mokoena’s expulsion or challenge the costs order on a valid basis. Mr Mokoena’s application for immediate enforcement was dismissed as…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Definition Of Occupier
• Burial Rights Under Esta
• Costs Award
• Adducing Further Evidence

Du Toit and Another v Lee and Others (6331/2022)

Du Toit and Another v Lee and Others (6331/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 396 (19 December 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6331/2022

Judge

Van Zyl

The High Court suspended handing down judgment in the main application until an interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is decided.

• Interlocutory Application
• Adducing Further Evidence
• Suspension Of Judgment
• Interlocutory-application
• Adducing-further-evidence
• Suspension-of-judgment

Jumar v Sheriff Pretoria South West and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2024-095168)

Jumar v Sheriff Pretoria South West and Others (Leave to Appeal) (2024-095168) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1306 (12 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-095168

Judge

K La M Manamela

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against an urgent interdict order, finding no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reason.

• Leave To Appeal
• Urgent Interdict
• Eviction Order
• Adducing Further Evidence
• Prospects Of Success
• Municipal Arrears

Galdhari v S (AR11/2022)

Galdhari v S (AR11/2022) [2023] ZAKZPHC 129 (10 November 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR11/2022

Judges

Mossop, Nicholson

The High Court remitted the matter to the Regional Court to decide the appellant’s application to lead further evidence before any sentence appeal proceeds.

• Sentencing
• Adducing Further Evidence
• Mitigation Of Sentence
• Films And Publications Act
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Criminal-appeal

Patel v S (CC209/2015)

Patel v S (CC209/2015) [2023] ZALMPPHC 44 (4 July 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

CC209/2015

Judge

Raulinga

The High Court dismissed an application to relax bail conditions and to recall a witness in an ongoing murder trial, finding no basis in justice or evidence.

• Bail Conditions
• Recall Of Witness
• Adducing Further Evidence
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Rights
• Bail-conditions

Togowe v S (66/2017)

Togowe v S (66/2017) [2022] ZAFSHC 312 (21 October 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

66/2017

Judge

P Molitsoane

The High Court refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, and denied leave to adduce further evidence, while granting condonation for late filing.

• Leave To Appeal
• Identification Evidence
• Adequacy Of Legal Representation
• Minimum Sentences
• Adducing Further Evidence
• Criminal-law

Bezuidenhout v S (41/2020)

Bezuidenhout v S (41/2020) [2021] ZASCA 52 (23 April 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

41/2020

Judges

Saldulker, Mocumie, Nicholls, Weiner, Mabindla-Boqwana

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant, as a layperson and self-represented accused, was not adequately assisted by the trial court regarding the technical nature and significance of the expert evidence led by the State. The magistrate failed to explain the consequences of the evidence or assist the appellant in procuring expert witnesses in rebuttal. This omission rendered the trial unfair. Given the adverse credibility findings already made by the magistrate and the pre-determination of the impact of further evidence, remittal for further evidence would not be just. The only f…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Adducing Further Evidence
• Self Represented Accused
• Application Of Criminal Procedure Act
• Remittal And De Novo Trial

J v J (A357/2018)

J v J (A357/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 851 (10 December 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A357/2018

Judges

Swanepoel, Tolmay, Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

High Court appeal rejected a challenge to a section 18(3) execution order, upheld interim maintenance pending appeal, and awarded punitive costs.

• Rule 43 Maintenance
• Section 18 Suspension Of Order
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Costs Punitive Scale
• Adducing Further Evidence
• Section-18-3-execution-pending-appeal

Liesching and Others v S and Another (CCT245/15)

Liesching and Others v S and Another (CCT245/15) [2016] ZACC 41; 2017 (4) BCLR 454 (CC); 2017 (2) SACR 193 (CC) (15 November 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 245/15

Judges

Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mbha, Mhlantla, Musi, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that the definition of 'appeal' in section 1 of the Superior Courts Act does not exclude all criminal matters from the scope of Chapter 5. Section 17(2)(f) applies to both civil and criminal proceedings, allowing the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal to refer a petition for reconsideration in exceptional circumstances. The procedure under section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Act is not an appeal and only applies after all recognised appeal procedures are exhausted. The President's interpretation, which excluded criminal matters from section 17(2)(f), crea…

Source excerpt

• Superior Courts Act Section 17 2 F
• Criminal Appeal Procedure
• Adducing Further Evidence
• Bill Of Rights Interpretation
• Equality Before Law
• Fair Trial Rights

Mabitle v S (CAF 4/2016)

Mabitle v S (CAF 4/2016) [2016] ZANWHC 24; 2017 (1) SACR 325 (NWM) (30 May 2016)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CAF 4/2016

Judges

Landman, Gutta, Djaje

The trial court erred in imposing a life sentence under the minimum sentencing regime without proper forewarning to the accused, as required by law. The absence of reference to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 in the indictment and lack of notification to the appellant rendered the sentence unlawful. The appellate court set aside the life sentence and imposed a sentence afresh, taking into account the appellant's youth, personal circumstances, and the need for rehabilitation. While contract killings are heinous and deserving of severe punishment, the mitigating factors warranted a s…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Contract Killing
• Mitigating Circumstances
• Adducing Further Evidence