South Africa Case Law

Phoshoko v S (Appeal) (AA09/2022)

Phoshoko v S (Appeal) (AA09/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 90 (5 May 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

AA 09/2022

Judges

Naude-Odendaal, Diamond, Pillay

The appeal court found that the trial court committed several procedural irregularities that went to the heart of the appellant's right to a fair trial. These included the improper admission of evidence without adequate ventilation in a 'trial within a trial', the trial court's intervention and limitation of cross-examination, and the acceptance of inadmissible hearsay evidence. The trial court failed to clarify which evidence formed the basis of the conviction and did not properly address the admissibility of the pointing out and confession. The cumulative effect of these irregularities rend…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Procedural Irregularity
• Confession And Admission
• Criminal Appeal
• Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence

Rampersad v S (A194/2020; CC64/2016)

Rampersad v S (A194/2020; CC64/2016) [2023] ZAGPPHC 752 (30 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A194/2020; CC64/2016

Judges

Sethusha-Shongwe, Mabuse, Baqwa

The High Court dismissed an appeal against convictions and sentence for murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and firearm offences.

• Confession And Admission
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Minimum Sentencing
• Fair Trial Rights
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearm

Bakane v S (1180/2016)

Bakane v S (1180/2016) [2017] ZASCA 182 (5 December 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1180/2016

Judges

Tshiqi, Majiedt, Petse, Mocumie, Makgoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's constitutional rights were violated during the police investigation, including his right not to incriminate himself and his right to legal representation. The statement (exhibit H) was obtained through assault and coercion, and the police failed to properly explain the appellant's rights or provide evidence that the statement was made voluntarily. The trial court erred in admitting exhibit H and convicting the appellant based on it, as there was no other admissible evidence linking the appellant to the crimes. The State failed to discharg…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Constitutional Rights
• Confession And Admission
• Onus Of Proof
• Exclusion Of Illegally Obtained Evidence

Mahlati and Another v S (A744/15)

Mahlati and Another v S (A744/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 113 (30 March 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A744/15

Judges

Sibuyi, Mothle

The appeal succeeded because the trial court materially misdirected itself in its factual findings and evaluation of evidence. The first appellant's conduct did not amount to accomplice liability, as there was no proof of intention to assist or further the commission of the offences. The circumstantial evidence did not exclude all reasonable inferences except guilt. For the second appellant, the trial court erred in admitting and relying on extra-curial statements and pointing out evidence, both of which were inadmissible due to constitutional and statutory requirements. Without these, the St…

Source excerpt

• Accomplice Liability
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Confession And Admission
• Pointing Out Evidence
• Onus Of Proof
• Constitutional Rights

Jantjies v S (CA & R 74/2012)

Jantjies v S (CA & R 74/2012) [2013] ZAECGHC 38 (1 March 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA & R 74/2012

Judges

M.J. Lowe, S. Alkema

The High Court dismissed a murder appeal, holding the accused's police statement was inadmissible for lack of a prior rights warning, but the remaining evidence still proved guilt.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Murder
• Confession And Admission
• Onus Of Proof
• Criminal-law

Seherie en Ander v S (A159/2011)

Seherie en Ander v S (A159/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 107 (10 February 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A159/2011

Judges

Fourie, Cloete

The appeal succeeded because the trial court erred in admitting the written statement of the co-accused, Cloete, as evidence against the appellant. Cloete did not testify in the main trial and could not be cross-examined on the contents of his statement, making it inadmissible under the principles set out in S v Libazi. The remaining evidence, consisting mainly of the testimony of Inspector Josephs, Abraham Basson, and Captain Fredericks, was found to be unreliable, uncorroborated, and insufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that the appellant's ver…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Hearsay
• Confession And Admission
• Burden Of Proof
• Appeal Procedure