South Africa Case Law

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018)

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 271 (29 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC08/2018

Judge

LekhULENI

The court held that the State may apply for the admission of hearsay evidence either under s 222 of the Criminal Procedure Act read with s 34 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act, or under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. The statutory exceptions established prior to 1988 remain in force, and the introductory phrase 'subject to the provisions of any other law' in s 3(1)(c) facilitates alternative avenues for admissibility. If the requirements of s 34 are met, the statements are admissible as a matter of law; if not, the court may still admit the evidence under s 3(1)(c) if it…

Source excerpt

• Hearsay Evidence
• Admissibility Of Documentary Evidence
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial
• Criminal Gang Activity
• Photo Identification Parade
• Witness Intimidation

eThekwini Municipality v Msizi Security CC and Others (D5291/2022)

eThekwini Municipality v Msizi Security CC and Others (D5291/2022) [2024] ZAKZDHC 36 (10 June 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D5291/2022

Judge

Sipunzi AJ

The court granted eThekwini Municipality a final interdict over trust land, finding its earlier consent and purchase arrangements established a clear right.

• Consent To Occupy Trust Land
• Admissibility Of Documentary Evidence
• Municipal Structures Act
• Final Interdict
• Ingonyama Trust Act
• Competing Rights To Land

S v Porritt and Another (SS 40/2006)

S v Porritt and Another (SS 40/2006) [2021] ZAGPJHC 382; 2022 (1) SACR 88 (GJ) (26 March 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS 40/2006

Judge

Spilg

High Court ruling admitting Hong Kong documents obtained by letters of request as trade and business records under s 5(2)(b) of the ICCMA.

• Admissibility Of Documentary Evidence
• International Cooperation In Criminal Matters Act
• Hearsay Exception
• Fair Trial Rights
• Chain Of Evidence
• Iccma

S v Porritt and Another (SS 40/2006)

S v Porritt and Another (SS 40/2006) [2021] ZAGPJHC 381 (19 March 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS 40/2006

Judge

Spilg

The court held that the State lawfully obtained the letters of request under section 2(2) of the ICCMA, as the accused had not yet pleaded and proceedings had not commenced. The Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeal have determined that section 2(2) applies prior to the commencement of proceedings and that the safeguards in section 5(2)(b) adequately protect the accused's fair trial rights. The accused's argument that the State deliberately withheld the institution of proceedings to frustrate their rights was rejected, as the law does not permit a section 2(1) application before th…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Documentary Evidence
• International Cooperation In Criminal Matters
• Letters Of Request
• Fair Trial Rights
• Affidavit Evidence
• Constitutional Challenge