Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal Law [2020] ZAKZPHC 53

Botes v S (AR321/2019)

Botes v S (AR321/2019) [2020] ZAKZPHC 53 (11 September 2020)

Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
AR321/2019
Judges
Chetty, Balton

The court found that the trial magistrate's failure to safeguard the appellant's right to legal representation, both by permitting his attorney to withdraw without proper enquiry and by refusing a reasonable postponement for the appellant to secure alternative representation, constituted a material irregularity. The subsequent lack of competent representation, including the failure to effectively cross-examine key witnesses, further prejudiced the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court held that these breaches of constitutional rights were sufficiently serious to vitiate the convictions…

Source excerpt

  • Right To Legal Representation
  • Fair Trial
  • Section 35 Constitution
  • Material Irregularity
  • Competent Defence
  • Withdrawal Of Counsel
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2013] ZAKZPHC 5

Pretorius and Others v Magistrate, Durban and Others (AR155/12)

Pretorius and Others v Magistrate, Durban and Others (AR155/12) [2013] ZAKZPHC 5; 2013 (2) SACR 153 (KZP) (18 January 2013)

Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Case number
AR155/12
Judges
Kruger, Mokgohloa

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that they did not receive proper, effective, or competent legal representation. The third respondent's version, supported by affidavits and not effectively challenged, indicated that adequate consultations took place and that the defence was conducted in accordance with professional ethics. The applicants' dissatisfaction was largely based on hindsight and the failure of their chosen defence strategy, which does not amount to grave injustice. The court held that misplaced reliance on legal advice, given in good faith, is not a ground for…

Source excerpt

  • Right To Legal Representation
  • Fair Trial
  • Competent Defence
  • Drugs And Drug Trafficking Act
  • Criminal Procedure Review
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2002] ZASCA 59

S v Halgryn (409/2001)

S v Halgryn (409/2001) [2002] ZASCA 59; [2002] 4 All SA 157 (SCA); 2002 (2) SACR 211 (SCA) (30 May 2002)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
409/2001
Judges
Harms, Brand, Heher

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant was afforded a fair opportunity to instruct his assigned counsel, Mr H, prior to the commencement of the trial. The record demonstrated that Mr H consulted with the appellant, obtained instructions, and conducted the defence in accordance with those instructions. The refusal to postpone the trial did not deprive the appellant of his right to legal representation, as he was unable to secure private counsel and was provided with legal aid. The right to choose counsel is not absolute and does not entitle an indigent accused to counsel of choic…

Source excerpt

  • Right To Fair Trial
  • Legal Representation
  • Adequate Preparation
  • Competent Defence
  • Special Entry
  • Self Defence
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.