South Africa Case Law

S v Nkuna (CC02/2023)

S v Nkuna (CC02/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1050 (22 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC02/2023

Judge

PD. Phahlane

The court found that the State's case rested almost entirely on the evidence of Mr Mathunzi, who was a single witness and an accomplice. His evidence was marked by numerous contradictions, improbabilities, and inconsistencies, both internally and when compared to other witnesses and his own prior statements. The court held that his evidence was of such poor quality that it could not be safely relied upon. No credible evidence linked the accused to the offences charged, nor placed him at the relevant locations. The State failed to establish a prima facie case against the accused, and there was…

Source excerpt

• Section 174 Discharge
• Prima Facie Case
• Credibility Of Single Witness
• Accomplice Evidence
• Constitutional Right To Silence

Ramthlakgwe v Modimolle-Mookgopong Local Municipality and Another (JS562/23)

Ramthlakgwe v Modimolle-Mookgopong Local Municipality and Another (JS562/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 190; (2023) 44 ILJ 2297 (LC) (15 June 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS562/23

Judge

M Jolwana

The court held that the applicant's constitutional rights to silence and a fair trial are not compromised by the employer proceeding with a disciplinary hearing, even where criminal charges have been laid. The disciplinary process and criminal proceedings are distinct, with different standards of proof and admissibility of evidence. The applicant is not compelled to testify at the disciplinary hearing and must choose whether to defend himself or remain silent. The mere existence of criminal charges does not entitle the applicant to a postponement or withdrawal of disciplinary proceedings. The…

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary Hearing
• Constitutional Right To Silence
• Abuse Of Process
• Fair Labour Practices
• Self Incrimination

Mahabo v S (A88/2020)

Mahabo v S (A88/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 223 (21 September 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A88/2020

Judges

Daffue, Opperman

The court found that the evidence of the single witness was not reliable and did not establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence was not properly applied, as it failed to exclude reasonable alternative inferences and did not point conclusively to the appellant as the perpetrator. The trial court misdirected itself by making a negative deduction from the appellant’s failure to testify, contrary to constitutional principles. The State’s failure to call other available witnesses further weakened its case. In light of these misdirections and the concession…

Source excerpt

• Single Witness
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Failure To Testify
• Burden Of Proof
• Admissibility Of Hearsay
• Constitutional Right To Silence

Zulu v S (CC32/15P)

Zulu v S (CC32/15P) [2016] ZAKZPHC 95 (22 July 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

CC32/15P

Judge

Poyo Dlwati

The High Court convicted the accused of murder and two attempted murders, accepting eyewitness, cellphone, and witness-statement evidence despite excluding one accused statement.

• Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Identification Evidence
• Admissibility Of Statements
• Trial Within A Trial
• Constitutional Right To Silence

Bakos v S (5/5376/07)

Bakos v S (5/5376/07) [2009] ZAGPJHC 69; 2010 (1) SACR 523 (GSJ) (1 December 2009)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

5/5376/07

Judges

Mokgoatlheng, Mabesela

The Magistrate failed to appreciate the distinction between the accused's refusal to testify under oath due to religious beliefs and an election to remain silent. The accused expressed a clear intention to testify but not under oath, which should have triggered the application of section 163 of the Criminal Procedure Act, allowing testimony under affirmation. The Magistrate's failure to conduct the necessary enquiry and permit affirmation constituted a procedural irregularity and denied the accused his constitutional right to a fair trial. This irregularity vitiated the proceedings, rendering…

Source excerpt

• Witness Oath And Affirmation
• Procedural Irregularity
• Right To Fair Trial
• Constitutional Right To Silence

S v Segapo (K/S104/05)

S v Segapo (K/S104/05) [2006] ZANCHC 113 (3 May 2006)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

K/S104/05

Judge

L P Tlaletsi

The High Court remitted a criminal matter for further trial and required the magistrate to give fuller reasons for an indecent assault conviction.

• Indecent Assault
• Common Purpose
• Adverse Inference
• Constitutional Right To Silence
• Criminal-law
• Indecent-assault

S v Mokoena and Another (A1101/2004)

S v Mokoena and Another (A1101/2004) [2005] ZAGPHC 352 (2 December 2005)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A1101/2004

Judges

E M Patel, F J Jooste

The High Court set aside robbery convictions after finding the identification evidence unreliable against both accused and insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Identification Evidence
• Reasonable Doubt
• Single Witness
• Constitutional Right To Silence
• Criminal-law
• Identification-evidence

S v Tselanngwe (CC 77/1998)

S v Tselanngwe (CC 77/1998) [2005] ZANWHC 40 (2 June 2005)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CC 77/1998

Judge

R D Mokgoatlheng

Leave to appeal was refused. The High Court held that accomplice evidence and the rejection of the appellant’s alibi were properly assessed, and the 16-year sentence was not excessive.

• Accomplice Evidence
• Alibi Defence
• Credibility Assessment
• Sentence Appeal
• Constitutional Right To Silence
• Accomplice-evidence