South Africa Case Law

S v Madiba and Another (09/2019)

S v Madiba and Another (09/2019) [2019] ZANWHC 22 (2 May 2019)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

09/2019

Judges

N G Laubscher, R D Hendricks

The High Court found that the trial court failed to properly consider the personal circumstances of the accused, particularly their status as primary caregivers of young children. The trial court overemphasised deterrence and the interests of society, neglecting the proportionality between the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the sentence. The absence of a pre-sentence report and failure to investigate the impact of imprisonment on the children were material misdirections. The reviewing court held that alternative sentences, such as suspended sentences or community service, were m…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Triad Of Zinn
• Primary Caregiver Guidelines
• Proportionality
• Alternative Sentencing
• Childrens Rights

S v Edipute (CA&R45/2018, 20180024)

S v Edipute (CA&R45/2018, 20180024) [2018] ZAECGHC 13 (22 February 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R45/2018, 20180024

Judges

J M Roberson, J E Smith

The magistrate erred in conducting a summary enquiry and convicting the accused for failing to appear while on bail, as such procedure is not authorised by the Criminal Procedure Act. The conviction and sentence for this offence were set aside. In sentencing the accused for theft, the magistrate failed to consider the interests of her minor children, despite clear evidence that she was their primary caregiver. The failure to address the impact of incarceration on the children constituted a miscarriage of justice. The sentence for theft was set aside and substituted with a sentence that took i…

Source excerpt

• Failure To Appear
• Primary Caregiver Sentencing
• Childrens Rights
• Theft
• Bail Forfeiture

O v O (2015/8185)

O v O (2015/8185) [2017] ZAGPJHC 88 (22 March 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2015/8185

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court dismissed an application to stop a former spouse from running a business from the property, finding no clear right, no proven harm, and adequate alternative remedies.

• Universal Partnership
• Interdict
• Ownership Dispute
• Childrens Rights
• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property
• Municipal By Laws

Mbengeni v Moagi and Another (A3117/2015)

Mbengeni v Moagi and Another (A3117/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 91 (29 April 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3117/2015

Judges

Mayet, Van der Linde

Appeal against an eviction order under PIE dismissed after the court found the magistrate properly weighed the relevant circumstances.

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Right To Adequate Housing
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Childrens Rights
• Municipal Obligations
• Eviction

L and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (2014/22434)

L and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (2014/22434) [2014] ZAGPJHC 336; 2015 (4) SA 197 (GJ); [2015] 1 All SA 335 (GJ) (18 November 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2014/22434

Judges

Spilg, Wright

The High Court found that Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd, through its local staff and agents, was in contempt of urgent court orders issued to prevent the deportation of the applicants' minor children. The court held that notification of the orders to the airline's staff constituted notification to the airline itself, and that the refusal to comply was wilful and mala fide, given the clear constitutional and statutory protections for children and the binding nature of court orders. The court rejected Cathay Pacific's arguments regarding lack of jurisdiction and the alleged nullity of the orders,…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Jurisdiction Over Foreign Entities
• Childrens Rights
• Immigration Act
• Best Interests Of Child
• Interdicts

Centre for Child Law v Governing Body of Hoerskool Fochville and Another ; InRe: Governing Body of Hoerskool Fochville and Another v Centre for Child Law (2011/46091)

Centre for Child Law v Governing Body of Hoerskool Fochville and Another ; InRe: Governing Body of Hoerskool Fochville and Another v Centre for Child Law (2011/46091) [2014] ZAGPJHC 187; [2014] 4 All SA 196 (GJ) (24 July 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2011/46091

Judge

Roland Sutherland

The High Court granted leave to appeal after finding that settlement of the main dispute rendered the interlocutory orders moot, but broader issues of principle still warranted appellate consideration.

• Intervention Procedure
• Public Interest Litigation
• Costs In Constitutional Matters
• Rule 35 Discovery
• Childrens Rights
• Amicus Curiae Evidence

Radebe and Others v Principal of Leseding Technical School and Others (1821/2013)

Radebe and Others v Principal of Leseding Technical School and Others (1821/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 111 (30 May 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1821/2013

Judge

N.W. Phalatsi

The court granted urgent relief to a Rastafarian learner excluded over dreadlocks, finding the school’s conduct unlawful, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

• Religious Discrimination
• School Code Of Conduct
• Right To Education
• Childrens Rights
• Final Interdict
• Urgent Relief

S v Kutumane (CC17/10)

S v Kutumane (CC17/10) [2011] ZAWCHC 178 (24 March 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC17/10

Judge

Fortuin

The court sentenced two accused to life imprisonment for murder and imposed additional concurrent sentences for racketeering, fraud, and attempted murder.

• Racketeering
• Fraud
• Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Minimum Sentences
• Childrens Rights

S v Moodley (A576/2006)

S v Moodley (A576/2006) [2008] ZAGPHC 179 (13 June 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A576/2006

Judges

Hartzenberg, Makhafola

The court found that while the appellant's lack of candour and remorse was relevant, the magistrate overstressed these factors and did not give sufficient weight to the appellant's emotional state and the circumstances surrounding the offence. The appellant committed a crime of passion, was not ordinarily criminally inclined, and acted out of fear of losing his family. The interests of the children were considered, but a non-custodial sentence was not appropriate given the seriousness of the offence. The court held that a sentence of 10 years imprisonment was just and proportionate, balancing…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Sentencing
• Crime Of Passion
• Primary Caregiver
• Childrens Rights
• Remorse