South Africa Case Law

Sehole and Others v Gaanakgomo and Others (CIV APP FB 20/2022; UM87/2021)

Sehole and Others v Gaanakgomo and Others (CIV APP FB 20/2022; UM87/2021) [2024] ZANWHC 51 (27 February 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CIV APP FB 20/2022; UM87/2021

Judges

Petersen, Reddy, Dewrance

The appeal was dismissed because the Council meeting of 29 October 2020 was not properly quorated, as required by the Standing Rules and the Constitution. The attempt to introduce the Attendance Register as new evidence failed to meet the requirements for admission on appeal, as the explanation for its absence was insufficient and its authenticity was not established. The Turquand Rule does not apply to acts that are ultra vires, and cannot validate appointments made at an unlawful meeting. The Acting Municipal Manager's authority to institute proceedings was not challenged in the proper mann…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Council Quorum
• Locus Standi
• Turquand Rule
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Admission Of New Evidence On Appeal
• Fair Labour Practices

Ebrahim v Breezewood Trading 88 CC t/a Mica Celtis (A5/2015)

Ebrahim v Breezewood Trading 88 CC t/a Mica Celtis (A5/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 728 (18 August 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A5/2015

Judges

Makhoba, R G Tolmay, N Kollapen

The court refused the application to admit new evidence on appeal, finding that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for not presenting the evidence at trial, that the evidence lacked a prima facie likelihood of truth, and that it was not materially relevant. The trial court's findings that the appellant misappropriated funds from the respondent were upheld, as there was no credible evidence of a loan account and the probabilities favoured the respondent's version. The court found that the Shifren rule and the parole evidence rule were correctly applied, and that the respo…

Source excerpt

• Close Corporation Member Dispute
• Misappropriation Of Funds
• Admission Of New Evidence On Appeal
• Parole Evidence Rule
• Non Variation Clause

Beyleveld v S (KS32/2004)

Beyleveld v S (KS32/2004) [2016] ZANCHC 25 (24 June 2016)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

KS32/2004

Judge

Olivier J

The court condoned a late application for leave to appeal sentence but found no prospects of success, holding that post-sentence rehabilitation was not exceptional.

• Leave To Appeal
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Admission Of New Evidence On Appeal
• Rehabilitation As Ground For Sentence Reduction
• Leave-to-appeal
• Condonation

Mthetwa and Another v Chiloane (A374/2013)

Mthetwa and Another v Chiloane (A374/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 400 (18 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A374/2013

Judges

Strijdom, Jansen

Appeal against eviction order set aside and remitted because PIE factors were not properly considered; new evidence about a disputed will was rejected.

• Eviction Under Pie
• Usufruct Rights
• Matrimonial Property Act
• Admission Of New Evidence On Appeal
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Alternative Accommodation

Britz v S (613/09)

Britz v S (613/09) [2010] ZASCA 71; 2010 (2) SACR 524 (SCA) (27 May 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

613/09

Judges

Cloete, Mlambo, Saldulker

Criminal appeal on whether post-sentence evidence about the appellant’s children justified admitting new evidence and reducing a custodial sentence.

• Admission Of New Evidence On Appeal
• Sentencing Principles
• Primary Caregiver In Sentencing
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Interests Of Children
• Correctional Supervision

S v Vermaak (218/07)

S v Vermaak (218/07) [2008] ZASCA 45 (31 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

218/07

Judges

Streicher, Heher, Kgomo

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against sentence, holding that no new evidence was made out and that the magistrate had not misdirected himself.

• Fraud
• Admission Of New Evidence On Appeal
• Sentencing Principles
• Mitigating Factors
• Magistrate Misdirection
• Sentencing-appeals

S v Swarts (26/88)

S v Swarts (26/88) [1989] ZASCA 16 (21 March 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

26/88

Judges

Hoexter, Kumleben, Eksteen

The court dismissed an appeal against sentence for theft, holding that later facts about restitution did not justify further leniency in this exceptional case.

• Sentencing Principles
• Restitution
• Admission Of New Evidence On Appeal
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Theft
• Sentencing-principles