South Africa Case Law

Sithole and Another v S (AR370/17)

Sithole and Another v S (AR370/17) [2025] ZAKZPHC 68 (20 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR370/17

Judges

Harrison, Mossop

The court found that the confessions of both appellants were inadmissible due to multiple constitutional and procedural violations. The officers who took the confessions were not independent from the investigating team, and the reasons for not securing a magistrate were vague and insufficient. The appellants were not properly afforded their rights to legal representation prior to making statements, and requests for legal consultation were ignored. There was no medical examination to verify allegations of assault, and the process lacked safeguards to ensure voluntariness and reliability. The a…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Legal Representation
• Self Incrimination
• Fair Trial Rights
• Voluntariness Of Statements

Ngcobo v S (AR 247/24)

Ngcobo v S (AR 247/24) [2025] ZAKZPHC 55 (12 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 247/24

Judges

Harrison, Radebe, P Bezuidenhout

The court found that the appellant's confession was inadmissible because the police were aware that he had legal representation and failed to allow him to consult with his attorney prior to making the statement. The evidence of the attorney, Mr Manzini, that he was to be present for any statement was never challenged or rejected. The conviction was based solely on the confession, and the absence of proper consultation constituted a material breach of the appellant's constitutional rights under section 35 of the Constitution. The admission of the confession rendered the trial unfair and was de…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Legal Representation
• Section 35 Constitution
• Fair Trial Rights
• Exclusion Of Evidence
• Trial Within A Trial

Ndlovu v S (Reasons) (AR 145/2024)

Ndlovu v S (Reasons) (AR 145/2024) [2025] ZAKZPHC 27; 2025 (1) SACR 506 (KZP) (7 March 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 145/2024

Judges

Olsen, Chili

The High Court upheld an appeal against murder conviction and life sentence after finding the confession was obtained in violation of constitutional rights.

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Legal Representation
• Fair Trial Rights
• Exclusion Of Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence
• Admissibility-of-confessions
• Right-to-legal-representation

Sangweni and Another v S (AR362/22; CCD12/2017)

Sangweni and Another v S (AR362/22; CCD12/2017) [2025] ZAKZPHC 10 (31 January 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR362/22; CCD12/2017

Judges

Mathenjwa, Steyn, Tucker

Appeal against murder and robbery convictions succeeded after the court found the confessions inadmissible and the remaining evidence insufficient.

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Dock Identification
• Cautionary Rule
• Single Witness Evidence
• Admissibility-of-confessions

Mchunu and Another v S (AR39/2022)

Mchunu and Another v S (AR39/2022) [2024] ZAKZPHC 92; 2025 (1) SACR 257 (KZP) (11 October 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR39/2022

Judges

Steyn, Vahed, Singh

The High Court set aside two murder and robbery convictions after finding the appellants’ confessions were inadmissible and the trial court failed to assess the evidence properly.

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Trial Within A Trial
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Section 217 Criminal Procedure Act
• Fruit Of The Poisoned Tree
• Minimum Sentences

Sehlabe v S (AA 05/2023)

Sehlabe v S (AA 05/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 112 (19 September 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

AA 05/2023

Judges

Monene, TC Tshidada, Mogale-Makinta

The Full Court upheld an appeal against convictions for conspiracy, murder and attempted murder, finding the trial court’s reasoning mutually destructive and unsupported by proof.

• Common Purpose Doctrine
• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Burden Of Proof
• Conspiracy
• Hearsay Evidence
• Criminal-appeal

S v Mapasa and Others (CC32/2024)

S v Mapasa and Others (CC32/2024) [2024] ZAECELLC 39 (26 August 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

CC32/2024

Judge

N Molony

High Court ruling in a criminal trial-within-a-trial admitting a confession, a pointing out, and an admission after finding they were made voluntarily and with rights explained.

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Admissibility Of Admissions
• Admissibility Of Pointing Outs
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Burden Of Proof
• Trial Within Trial Procedure

S v Mokoane and Others (CC65/19)

S v Mokoane and Others (CC65/19) [2024] ZAGPPHC 679 (19 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC65/19

Judge

M A Lukhaimane

The High Court granted accused no. 5 a section 174 discharge after finding no admissible evidence linked him to the robberies, murders, or related charges.

• Section 174 Discharge
• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Burden Of Proof
• Acquittal Procedure
• Section-174-discharge
• Criminal-procedure-act

Fundamo v S (A220/2023)

Fundamo v S (A220/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 199 (30 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A220/2023

Judges

Brand, Davis, Van Der Schyff

The trial court erred in relying on the co-accused's statement to convict the appellant, as section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act prohibits the use of a confession by one accused against another. The statement in question was not a true confession but an extra-curial admission, which is hearsay and inadmissible unless admitted under statutory exceptions, which the trial court failed to consider. The appellant's conduct during the statement did not amount to an admission of guilt, nor did it satisfy the requirements for common purpose liability as set out in S v Mgedezi. The evidence showe…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Common Purpose Liability
• Hearsay Evidence
• Mens Rea
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances

S v Somadlangathi (CC14/2022)

S v Somadlangathi (CC14/2022) [2023] ZAECMHC 64 (21 August 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CC14/2022

Judge

RWN Brooks

The Court found that the warning statement and confession made by the accused were inadmissible due to serious procedural irregularities, unreliable police testimony, and credible allegations of assault and coercion. The investigating officer failed to record accurate dates and times, and the process of taking the confession was tainted by haste, proximity to the investigation, and the use of a commissioned police officer as justice of the peace. The accused's version of events, though embellished, could not be excluded as reasonably possibly true. No evidence linked the accused to the murder…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Trial Within A Trial
• Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Police Misconduct