South Africa Case Law

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018)

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 341 (11 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC08/2018

Judge

Lekhuleni

The Court found that Delano Saptoe was a co-accused of accused 3 and 14 at the time he made the warning statement in the lower court. The statement was made after the alleged offence and did not advance a common purpose; it was a narrative statement recounting past events. The statement did not qualify as an executive statement under the common law exception and thus could not be admitted against accused 3 and 14. Furthermore, the statement was taken in violation of Saptoe's constitutional right to legal representation, as he requested a lawyer before giving the statement but was denied one.…

Source excerpt

• Hearsay Evidence
• Admissibility Of Warning Statement
• Co Accused Statements
• Constitutional Right To Legal Representation
• Executive Vs Narrative Statement
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act

Dzuni Properties CC and Another v Italite Investments (Pty) Ltd (2021/6114)

Dzuni Properties CC and Another v Italite Investments (Pty) Ltd (2021/6114) [2023] ZAGPJHC 824 (25 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/6114

Judge

Moorcroft

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the court found no reasonable prospects of success. Costs were awarded on the attorney-and-client scale.

• Leave To Appeal
• Postponement
• Enforcement Of Contract
• Constitutional Right To Legal Representation
• Leave-to-appeal
• Contract-enforcement

S v Rampersad (CC64/2016)

S v Rampersad (CC64/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 961 (14 September 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC64/2016

Judge

Bam

The Court found that the State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused's confession and pointing out were admitted as evidence, as the Court was satisfied they were made freely and voluntarily, and that the accused's constitutional rights were not violated. The accused's version was rejected as false and not reasonably possibly true. The evidence, including cell phone records, forensic findings, and the accused's own admissions, established his presence at the scene and involvement in the murder, robbery, and unlawful possession of the firearm and ammunition. The Court also fou…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearm
• Unlawful Possession Of Ammunition
• Admissibility Of Confession
• Constitutional Right To Legal Representation

De Freitas and Another v Society of Advocates of Natal and Another (120/99)

De Freitas and Another v Society of Advocates of Natal and Another (120/99) [2001] ZASCA 9; 2001 (3) SA 750 (SCA); 2001 (6) BCLR 531 (SCA) (9 March 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

120/99

Judges

Hefer, Smalberger, Nienaber, Cameron, Mpati

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the referral rule, which generally prohibits advocates from accepting instructions directly from clients without attorney intervention, remains necessary and justified in the public interest. The absence of statutory trust account protection for advocates exposes clients to significant risks, and the rule serves to safeguard both the independence of the Bar and the interests of the public. The applicants' arguments based on constitutional rights and recent legislative changes were rejected, as these do not require the abandonment of the referral rule. The…

Source excerpt

• Unprofessional Conduct
• Referral Rule
• Right Of Appearance
• Trust Account Requirements
• Constitutional Right To Legal Representation

S v Baartman (450/95)

S v Baartman (450/95) [1996] ZASCA 27 (27 March 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

450/95

Judges

Hefer, Smalberger, Howie, Schutz, Zulman

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that, although the trial court correctly admitted the confession and pointing out as voluntary, the reliability and truthfulness of the appellant's statement were seriously undermined by material inaccuracies and inconsistencies. The appellant's confession contradicted objective evidence and eyewitness testimony, particularly regarding the number of perpetrators and the alleged theft of goats. The appellant was well known to the victims, yet eyewitnesses did not identify him at the scene. The court held that the trial court failed to properly consider factors…

Source excerpt

• Confession Evidence
• Admissibility Of Statements
• Reasonable Doubt
• Constitutional Right To Legal Representation