South Africa Case Law

Amajouyi v Minister of Police (536/23)

Amajouyi v Minister of Police (536/23) [2025] ZANWHC 77 (7 May 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

536/23

Judge

Wessels

The court found that the plaintiff's arrest and detention were effected without justification, explanation, or compliance with statutory requirements. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving lawfulness. The search of the plaintiff's residence was conducted without a warrant or consent, in violation of constitutional rights to privacy and dignity. The SAPS failed to bring the plaintiff before a court, and the detention lasted five days. The plaintiff's claim for damages for loss of property and damage to property failed due to insufficient evidence and lack of proper pleading. Th…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Warrantless Search
• Damages For Loss Of Property
• Constitutional Right To Privacy
• Quantum Of Damages

Muller v S (CA&R59/19; CA&R57/19)

Muller v S (CA&R59/19; CA&R57/19) [2020] ZANCHC 90; 2022 (2) SACR 106 (NCK) (10 December 2020)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R59/19; CA&R57/19

Judges

Tlaletsi, Phatshoane

The court found that the trial court misdirected itself by overemphasising the seriousness of the offences and the interests of the community, while failing to properly consider the appellants' personal and mitigating circumstances. The reliance on evidence regarding the negative effect of drugs on children was misplaced, as there was no proof that the appellants sold cannabis to children. The cumulative effect of multiple sentences was not properly considered, resulting in disproportionately harsh sentences. The court held that, although dealing in cannabis remains a serious offence, the cha…

Source excerpt

• Dealing In Cannabis
• Sentencing Principles
• Mitigating Circumstances
• Concurrent Sentences
• Constitutional Right To Privacy

B.K and Another v Minister of Police and Others (22575/2018)

B.K and Another v Minister of Police and Others (22575/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 91; 2020 (1) SACR 56 (WCC) (21 June 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

22575/2018

Judge

Bozalek

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a search warrant and recover seized items, leaving lawfulness and admissibility issues to the criminal trial court.

• Search And Seizure
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Unlawful Search
• Preservation Order
• Constitutional Right To Privacy
• Search-and-seizure

S v Ndlovu and Others (CC90/2017)

S v Ndlovu and Others (CC90/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 123 (26 November 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CC90/2017

Judge

Pickering

Trial-within-a-trial on whether evidence from a warrantless search of chalet 8 at Makana Resort should be excluded in a rhino poaching prosecution.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Unlawful Search And Seizure
• Protected Species Poaching
• Derivative Real Evidence
• Constitutional Right To Privacy
• Exclusionary Rule

Gounden and Another v Noncebu NO and Others (AR119/17)

Gounden and Another v Noncebu NO and Others (AR119/17) [2017] ZAKZPHC 57; 2018 (2) SACR 186 (KZP) (15 December 2017)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR119/17

Judges

Mahabeer, Seegobin

The court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying interference with the ongoing criminal proceedings. Financial distress, as alleged by the applicants, does not constitute a legal ground for review nor does it meet the threshold of rarity or grave injustice required for High Court intervention. The court emphasized the public interest in allowing criminal trials to proceed without piecemeal reviews, noting that such interventions would unduly burden the courts and conflict with both the accused's and the state's right to a speedy trial. As the appli…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Magistrates Court Proceedings
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Search And Seizure
• Constitutional Right To Privacy
• Onus Of Proof
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation

Mkhutyukelwa v Minister of Police (2789/2013)

Mkhutyukelwa v Minister of Police (2789/2013) [2017] ZAECMHC 34 (8 August 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2789/2013

Judge

SM Jolwana

The High Court held that a warrantless search, arrest and detention were unlawful, and awarded damages after a police shooting and alleged assault.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Assault By Police
• Warrantless Search
• Damages Assessment
• Constitutional Right To Privacy

Goldberg v Director of Public Prosecutions: Western Cape (A446/12)

Goldberg v Director of Public Prosecutions: Western Cape (A446/12) [2013] ZAWCHC 184; 2014 (2) SACR 57 (WCC) (17 December 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A446/12

Judges

Goliath, Le Grange, Rogers

The court held that the appellant was not the owner of the ivory at the time of the alleged offences, nor had he acquired a vested right to ownership. The ivory belonged to his mother, who was the proprietor of the shop. The statutory offences under s 42(1)(b) and s 46(c) require possession and acquisition for one's own benefit, which was not established in the appellant's case. The evidence showed that the appellant acted as an employee and manager, not as the possessor or seller for his own benefit. The state failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant acquired or possessed t…

Source excerpt

• Nature And Environmental Conservation Ordinance
• Search And Seizure
• Constitutional Right To Privacy
• Mens Rea
• Accomplice Liability

Segopolo v S (A72/2012)

Segopolo v S (A72/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 213 (24 October 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A72/2012

Judges

Ebrahim, Van Zyl, Fischer

The court found that the conviction for murder was supported by credible evidence, including the confession made to Captain Mojaki, forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime scene, and corroborating witness testimony. The search and seizure at the appellant's premises were lawful, either by express or implied consent or under statutory exceptions due to urgency and risk of evidence destruction. The appellant's constitutional rights were not infringed, and the evidence obtained was admissible. The appellant was found to have lived alone at the premises during the relevant period, an…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Search And Seizure
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Confession
• Constitutional Right To Privacy

Barbieri v Barbieri (4316/2013)

Barbieri v Barbieri (4316/2013) [2013] ZAKZDHC 19 (17 May 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

4316/2013

Judge

Lopes

The court held that the best interests of the children must take precedence over the respondent's constitutional right to privacy in the context of psychological assessments for determining primary residence. The respondent had previously agreed to attend the assessment, and the applicant had already complied with his obligations by attending the respondent's expert. Allowing parties to be accompanied by attorneys during such assessments would undermine the integrity of the process and potentially prevent experts from conducting meaningful evaluations, which are essential for the court's deci…

Source excerpt

• Best Interests Of Children
• Psychological Assessment
• Joinder Of Parties
• Constitutional Right To Privacy

Zoeco System Managers CC v Minister of Safety and Security NO and Others (54447/12)

Zoeco System Managers CC v Minister of Safety and Security NO and Others (54447/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 353; 2013 (2) SACR 545 (GNP) (6 December 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

54447/12

Judge

Teffo

The court found that the search and seizure warrant issued on 6 September 2012 was invalid due to lack of sufficient information on oath, vagueness, and overbreadth in the description of articles to be seized. The affidavit supporting the warrant failed to provide objective jurisdictional facts or detail the events leading to the new warrant. The applicant demonstrated ongoing financial harm and loss of possession, justifying urgency. Following the principle in Ivanor, the applicant was entitled to restoration of all seized items once the warrant was set aside, regardless of the alleged illeg…

Source excerpt

• Search And Seizure
• Mandament Van Spolie
• Validity Of Search Warrant
• Urgent Interdict
• Constitutional Right To Privacy