South Africa Case Law

Mohiudeen v Bara N.O and Others (521/2023)

Mohiudeen v Bara N.O and Others (521/2023) [2024] ZAECQBHC 82 (5 December 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

521/2023

Judges

Rossi, A Beyleveld

The court held that intervention in unterminated criminal proceedings is reserved for rare cases where grave injustice would result or justice cannot be attained by other means. The applicant failed to demonstrate any gross irregularity or grave injustice that could not be remedied at trial or on appeal. The charge sheet, together with the preamble and further particulars, adequately set out the elements of fraud and theft, including the alleged common purpose and prejudice to Transnet. The applicant was provided with the docket and witness statements, and any further disputes regarding evide…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Charge Sheet Particularity
• Common Purpose
• Minimum Sentences
• Jurisdictional Objection

Keva v S (A103/2021)

Keva v S (A103/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 217 (29 October 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A103/2021

Judges

Wille, Montzinger

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against rape conviction and life sentence, finding the complainant’s evidence credible, corroborated, and not reasonably possibly false.

• Rape Of Minor
• Minimum Sentencing Regime
• Fair Trial Rights
• Credibility Of Single Witness
• Charge Sheet Particularity
• Criminal-appeal

Vilakazi v S (636/2015)

Vilakazi v S (636/2015) [2016] ZASCA 103; 2016 (2) SACR 365 (SCA) (10 June 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

636/2015

Judges

Mhlantla, Shongwe, Theron, Dambuza, Mathopo

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a rape conviction appeal, holding that the child complainant’s evidence, medical report, and sister’s testimony proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Rape
• Evidence Of Children
• Admissibility Of First Report
• Onus Of Proof
• Contradictory Evidence
• Charge Sheet Particularity

Shabih v S (CA&R14/14)

Shabih v S (CA&R14/14) [2015] ZAECBHC 13 (21 April 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

CA&R14/14

Judges

Hartle, Difford

Appeal upheld after the court found the appellant was convicted on a factual basis not set out in the charge sheet, contrary to fair trial rights.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Charge Sheet Particularity
• Hindering Labour Inspector
• Basic Conditions Of Employment Act
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 84
• Fair-trial-rights

Le Roux v S (A746/10)

Le Roux v S (A746/10) [2011] ZAWCHC 367 (1 September 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A746/10

Judges

Sven Oliver, A. Binns-Ward

Appeal in a child-rape case. The court set aside the common-law rape conviction for a defective charge sheet, confirmed the statutory rape conviction, and imposed 18 years’ imprisonment.

• Rape Of Minor
• Minimum Sentencing
• Charge Sheet Particularity
• Child Witness Intermediary
• Fair Trial Rights
• Criminal-appeal

Pienaar and Another v Magistrate, Zwelitsha (745/05, ECJ136)

Pienaar and Another v Magistrate, Zwelitsha (745/05, ECJ136) [2006] ZAECHC 19 (20 April 2006)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

745/05

Judge

N Dambuza

The court found that the delay attributable to the State was not so unreasonable as to justify a permanent stay of prosecution. There was insufficient evidence that the State caused the postponements or that the applicants suffered prejudice sufficient to warrant the drastic relief sought. The charges, as amplified by further particulars, were sufficiently detailed to inform the applicants of the case against them. The court agreed with the magistrate that any defects or vagueness in the charges could be remedied by amendment and postponement, and that the applicants' constitutional rights ha…

Source excerpt

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Fair Trial Rights
• Delay In Criminal Proceedings
• Charge Sheet Particularity
• Constitutional Rights

S v Oliver and Another (CC 124/2004)

S v Oliver and Another (CC 124/2004) [2005] ZANWHC 73 (1 October 2005)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CC 124/2004

Judges

Landman, Gura, Monaledi

The court held that the identical charge sheets did not sufficiently inform the accused of the State's intention to charge them in different capacities, namely as perpetrator and accomplice. A fair trial requires that the accused be informed with sufficient detail about the charges they must meet. In this case, the charge sheets failed to specify whether each accused was charged as a perpetrator or as an accomplice to the other's act of rape. The court found that the respondents were not adequately informed of the nature and purport of the charges, and thus one conviction for each accused was…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Accomplice Liability
• Fair Trial Rights
• Charge Sheet Particularity

Wannenburg v S (A483/04)

Wannenburg v S (A483/04) [2005] ZAWCHC 37; 2007 (1) SACR 27 (C) (20 May 2005)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A483/04

Judges

Bozalek, Davis

The appeal was allowed because the conviction of the appellant as an accomplice to 52 counts of fraud was legally unsustainable. The charge sheet failed to inform the appellant that he was being charged as an accomplice, and did not allege that another person committed the frauds. The evidence did not establish that the alleged principal, Adriaanse, made the misrepresentations required for fraud, nor that anyone else did so. The appellant's constitutional right to a fair trial was infringed, as he was not apprised of the precise case he had to meet. It is impermissible to charge an accused as…

Source excerpt

• Fraud
• Accomplice Liability
• Charge Sheet Particularity
• Fair Trial Rights
• Misrepresentation
• Criminal Procedure