South Africa Case Law

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018)

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 271 (29 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC08/2018

Judge

LekhULENI

The court held that the State may apply for the admission of hearsay evidence either under s 222 of the Criminal Procedure Act read with s 34 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act, or under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act. The statutory exceptions established prior to 1988 remain in force, and the introductory phrase 'subject to the provisions of any other law' in s 3(1)(c) facilitates alternative avenues for admissibility. If the requirements of s 34 are met, the statements are admissible as a matter of law; if not, the court may still admit the evidence under s 3(1)(c) if it…

Source excerpt

• Hearsay Evidence
• Admissibility Of Documentary Evidence
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial
• Criminal Gang Activity
• Photo Identification Parade
• Witness Intimidation

S v Ndzeru and Another (Review) (REV81/202)

S v Ndzeru and Another (Review) (REV81/202) [2024] ZALMPTHC 33; 2025 (1) SACR 409 (LT) (13 November 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

REV81/202

Judges

T.C Tshidada, AML Phatudi

The court found that the acting Magistrate's appointment had expired prior to the commencement of the trial, rendering him without authority to preside over the proceedings. As a result, all actions taken by the Magistrate after the expiry of his appointment were null and void. This constituted a fundamental irregularity and a violation of the accused's constitutional right to a fair trial before a competent judicial officer. The High Court determined that, although it does not ordinarily intervene in pending lower court proceedings before conviction, the circumstances were exceptional and in…

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Act Appointment
• Competent Judicial Officer
• Nullity Of Proceedings
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018)

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC 221 (31 July 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC08/2018

Judge

Lekhuleni

The court held that the correct approach to admitting hearsay statements by deceased persons, as set out in S v Kapa, is to evaluate the statement together with all other evidence at the end of the trial, rather than in a separate preliminary hearing. The jurisdictional requirements of section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act must be satisfied during the holistic assessment of all evidence. The court found that this approach does not prejudice the accused, as the reliability and probative value of the statement will be determined in the context of the entire case. The objection to…

Source excerpt

• Hearsay Evidence
• Admissibility Of Deceased Statements
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial

Taylor v Regional Court Magistrate, Nemavhidi and Another (12398/19)

Taylor v Regional Court Magistrate, Nemavhidi and Another (12398/19) [2023] ZAGPJHC 604 (31 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

12398/19

Judges

Thupaatlase, Johnson

The High Court held that the regional magistrate's court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a permanent stay of prosecution based on pre-trial delay or constitutional grounds. The court relied on established precedent, notably S v Naidoo and Van der Walt v DPP, which confirm that such relief must be sought in the High Court. Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act provides remedies only for eliminating delay in pending proceedings, not for terminating prosecutions. The applicant failed to demonstrate actual, significant prejudice, relying instead on hypothetical claims regardi…

Source excerpt

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Jurisdiction Of Magistrates Court
• Unreasonable Delay
• Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial

S v Beja and Another (CC18/2021)

S v Beja and Another (CC18/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 113 (19 May 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC18/2021

Judge

Thulare

The court found that Tofile was hostile to the prosecution, as evidenced by his refusal to cooperate, evasion of the subpoena, and contradictory statements. The impeachment application was governed by section 190(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows for the impeachment of a witness's credibility. The court held that the prior inconsistent statement made by Tofile was, prima facie, freely and voluntarily given and that no promises from the police induced the statement. The admissibility of the statement as evidence is distinct from its truth and is subject to further challenge. The c…

Source excerpt

• Impeachment Of Witness
• Hearsay Evidence
• Hostile Witness
• Prior Inconsistent Statement
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial

Qurashi and Others v The State (1166/2018)

Qurashi and Others v The State (1166/2018) [2022] ZASCA 118; [2022] 4 All SA 295 (SCA); 2022 (2) SACR 459 (SCA) (22 August 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1166/2018

Judges

Ponnan, Van der Merwe, Carelse, Makaula, Phatshoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the searches and seizures, although conducted without warrants, did not violate the appellants' constitutional rights in a manner that rendered the trial unfair or was detrimental to the administration of justice. The searches were either conducted with the permission of the letting agent or pursuant to lawful arrest, and the chain of custody of exhibits was maintained. The court distinguished between real and testimonial evidence, finding that the evidence obtained was real and not conscriptive or self-incriminatory. The court found that the hearsay evid…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Hearsay Evidence
• Common Purpose Liability
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial

Venter v S (779/2018)

Venter v S (779/2018) [2021] ZASCA 21 (18 March 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

779/2018

Judges

Cachalia, Mocumie, Molemela, Mabindla-Boqwana, Poyo-Dlwati

The majority of the Supreme Court of Appeal found that, despite inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's evidence, these were not material and were adequately explained by the trauma suffered and the passage of time. The court held that the complainant's evidence was reliable and credible when considered holistically, and that the appellant was able to plead to all charges without objection to vagueness or lack of particulars. The trial court's failure to provide reasons for each count did not amount to a violation of the appellant's constitutional right to a fair trial in the…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Indecent Assault
• Credibility Of Single Witness
• Contradictory Evidence
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial
• Evaluation Of Evidence

Prince v Groenewald NO and Another (4561/18)

Prince v Groenewald NO and Another (4561/18) [2018] ZAWCHC 182 (12 December 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4561/18

Judges

Baartman, Thulare

The High Court dismissed a review alleging bias and irregularity in a magistrate’s handling of drug charges, remitting the criminal matter to proceed before another magistrate.

• Objection To Charge
• Bias In Judicial Proceedings
• Stay Of Criminal Proceedings
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Drugs And Drug Trafficking Act
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial

S v Diya (CC07/2018)

S v Diya (CC07/2018) [2018] ZAECMHC 14; [2018] 2 All SA 488 (ECM) (22 February 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CC07/2018

Judge

Jolwana

The court found that the accused's confession was made freely and voluntarily, in his sound and sober senses, and without undue influence. The confession was corroborated by material evidence, including witness testimony, forensic findings, and the post mortem report. The accused's allegations of torture and inducement were unsupported by objective evidence and contradicted by police records and the testimony of multiple officers. The accused's alibi was discredited by credible witnesses who placed him at the scene on the relevant date. The court held that the accused's constitutional right t…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Confession Admissibility
• Alibi Defence
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial

Buthelezi v S (A416/2016)

Buthelezi v S (A416/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 925 (15 December 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A416/2016

Judges

Hughes, Rangata

The High Court set aside a life sentence for rape, finding the magistrate applied the wrong sentencing statute, and substituted 15 years’ imprisonment.

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Sentencing Misdirection
• Sexual Offences Act
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial
• Criminal-law