Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Sangweni and Another v S (AR362/22; CCD12/2017) [2025] ZAKZPHC 10 (31 January 2025)
Appeal against murder and robbery convictions succeeded after the court found the confessions inadmissible and the remaining evidence insufficient.
Mchunu and Another v S (AR39/2022) [2024] ZAKZPHC 92; 2025 (1) SACR 257 (KZP) (11 October 2024)
The High Court set aside two murder and robbery convictions after finding the appellants’ confessions were inadmissible and the trial court failed to assess the evidence properly.
S v Mapasa and Others (CC32/2024) [2024] ZAECELLC 39 (26 August 2024)
High Court ruling in a criminal trial-within-a-trial admitting a confession, a pointing out, and an admission after finding they were made voluntarily and with rights explained.
Motloung and Another v Commissioner South African Revenue Service and Others (5492/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 254 (23 June 2023)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The understatement penalty imposed by SARS is administrative, not criminal, and section 35(3) of the Constitution does not apply to taxpayers subject to such penalties. The exclusion of understatement penalties from certain provisions of the Tax Administration Act does not alter their administrative nature. The applicants did not raise genuine constitutional issues, and their reliance on the Biowatch principle was misplaced, as their litigation was not substantive or genuine in constitutional…
Source excerpt
S v Zimele and Others (CC16/2020) [2022] ZAECMHC 55 (24 March 2022)
The Court found that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession statement made by accused 3 was obtained freely and voluntarily, as required by Section 217 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence presented by the police officers regarding the explanation of constitutional rights was unreliable and did not adequately demonstrate that accused 3 was properly informed of his rights prior to making the statement. The circumstantial evidence presented by the State, including the recovery of a firearm and the presence of accused 4 near the scene, did not exclude othe…
Source excerpt
Nhlabathi v S (A525/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 752 (17 December 2020)
The High Court upheld a murder appeal, holding that a confession was inadmissible after alleged police assault and threats, and that the remaining evidence was insufficient.
S v Rulwa and Another (CC22/2018) [2020] ZAECMHC 23 (19 June 2020)
The High Court refused an application to reconstruct an incomplete trial record, finding the missing transcript portions did not compromise the accused’s fair trial rights.
Brackenfell Trailer Hire (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Transport (20825/2017; 22046/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 30; 2019 (2) SACR 62 (WCC) (20 March 2019)
The court held that the presumption in section 73(1) of the National Road Traffic Act does not operate against the owner of a trailer in prosecutions for driving offences, as the statutory language and definitions make clear that only the owner of the vehicle being driven is subject to the presumption. The inclusion of 'trailer' in the definition of 'motor vehicle' does not extend the presumption to trailer owners for driving offences. However, the presumption in section 73(2) regarding parking offences may apply to trailer owners, as the offence concerns the stationary position of the vehicl…
Source excerpt
S v Bomvana (CC03/2017) [2018] ZAECMHC 38; 2019 (1) SACR 418 (ECM) (20 July 2018)
The court excluded the accused’s alleged confession, found the police evidence contradictory and unreliable, and granted a section 174 discharge on all counts.
Beja and Another v S (17424/2011) [2016] ZAWCHC 195 (15 December 2016)
The court found that both appellants' warning statements and the First Appellant's pointing out were not proved to have been made freely and voluntarily. Multiple police witnesses observed injuries on the First Appellant prior to the pointing out and statement, yet failed to investigate the circumstances or possible influence of those injuries on the voluntariness of the statements. The First Appellant's version of assault was reasonably possibly true and should have been fully interrogated before admitting the evidence. In the case of the Second Appellant, although no injuries were observed,…
Source excerpt
Explore more
