Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Giyani Engineering & Consulting CC and Another v Jacobs and Others (542/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 821 (14 October 2022)
The High Court dismissed an application to compel documents and affidavits in a part-heard matter, upheld six points in limine, and awarded attorney-and-client costs.
Haarhoff and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions Eastern Cape (Grahamstown) (1192/17) [2018] ZASCA 184; [2019] 1 All SA 585 (SCA); 2019 (1) SACR 371 (SCA) (11 December 2018)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the complainant, though intellectually challenged, was properly assessed by an expert psychologist and found competent to testify. The trial court's admonition under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act was appropriate, as the complainant understood the difference between truth and falsehood and the obligation to speak the truth. The court found that the complainant's evidence, corroborated by DNA and objective facts, was reliable and credible despite minor contradictions. The appellants' versions were riddled with improbabilities and inconsistencies…
Source excerpt
Makhanyana v S (AR96/15) [2017] ZAKZPHC 28 (23 March 2017)
Appeal against rape conviction dismissed, but life imprisonment was replaced with 25 years after the court found the sentence excessive.
Gilbert v S (CAF 04/2010) [2010] ZANWHC 28 (28 October 2010)
A full bench upheld a rape conviction where one child complainant did not testify, finding eyewitness and medical evidence sufficient to prove penetration.
Dladla v S (AR 483/09) [2010] ZAKZPHC 37; 2011 (1) SACR 80 (KZP) (1 June 2010)
Appeal against conviction for assault upheld after the court found the magistrate wrongly accepted evidence from a mentally ill complainant without proper inquiry.
Adams v S (A142/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 151 (28 May 2010)
The appeal succeeded because the trial court failed to conduct the mandatory enquiry into the complainant's competence as a witness, despite clear evidence of her intellectual disability. The magistrate treated the complainant as a normal witness without investigating her understanding of the oath or her ability to testify, contrary to the requirements of sections 193 and 194 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence of the complainant was therefore inadmissible, and the conviction and sentence based on such evidence were set aside. However, the setting aside of the conviction and sentence…
Source excerpt
S v Isaacs and Another (A233/05) [2006] ZAWCHC 2 (26 January 2006)
The High Court reviewed a joint criminal trial and held that calling a co-accused who had pleaded guilty as a prosecution witness without separating the trials was an irregularity that prejudiced the remaining accused.
S v Roux (2904/02, PSS131/2002, 50/2002) [2002] ZAWCHC 74; 2007 (1) SACR 379 (C) (2 December 2002)
The court held that a child witness with a speech impairment may testify through a competent interpreter or expert, and remitted the case for trial to proceed.
Explore more
