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
Simon v S (Appeal) (A06/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 142 (30 July 2025)
High Court appeal dismissed in a murder conviction. The court held that the appellant’s private-defence version was not reasonably possibly true.
Dukulae v Minister of Police (885/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 129 (25 July 2025)
The court held that the plaintiff’s arrest for assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm was unlawful and awarded R50,000 damages.
S v Lund (A17/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 711 (21 July 2025)
The High Court refused condonation for the State’s late appeal against bail and dismissed the leave to appeal application, finding no satisfactory explanation for delay.
Tshalibe v Minister of Home Affairs and Other (23795/2012) [2025] ZAGPPHC 708 (15 July 2025)
The High Court held the police liable for unlawful arrest and detention, finding procedural breaches under the CPA. The malicious prosecution claim was dismissed.
Joka v Station Commander, Vehicle Identification Unit, Komani and Another (2685/2025) [2025] ZAECMKHC 57 (15 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an urgent spoliation and interdict application for release of a minibus, finding the police had reasonable grounds to seize it under the CPA.
Janse Van Rensburg v S (Bail Appeal) (BA02/2025; SA158/2024) [2025] ZAMPMHC 33 (23 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed a bail appeal, finding the appellant failed to show the interests of justice permitted release and remained a flight risk.
S v Samson (10/2025) [2025] ZAECQBHC 19 (20 June 2025)
The court found that the accused acted in self-defence when he shot the deceased, based on the medical evidence, the trajectory of the bullet, and the circumstances of the armed intrusion. The accused's version was reasonably possible and supported by the evidence, leading to acquittal on the murder charge. However, the accused's subsequent conduct, including kidnapping Blaauw, attempted murder by firing shots at him, and actions to defeat the ends of justice by disposing of the body and concealing evidence, were inconsistent with lawful conduct and not justified by self-defence. The court fo…
Source excerpt
Van Jaarsveld v S; Ras v S (1105/2023; 885/2024) [2025] ZASCA 92 (20 June 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that section 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not empower a trial court to alter a verdict after it has been pronounced; any such amendment constitutes a material misdirection. The trial court erred in convicting Van Jaarsveld on forgery after initially acquitting him, and this conviction was set aside. Regarding sentence, the Court held that both trial courts failed to adequately consider the appellants' personal circumstances, the impact on minor children, and the cumulative effect of sentences. The sentences imposed were found to be unduly harsh and…
Source excerpt
S v Philander and Others (Special Review) (29/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 291 (6 June 2025)
The High Court held that while Scott's appearance as a struck-off advocate was irregular and constituted a criminal offence under the Legal Practice Act, the Legislature did not intend such irregularity to render proceedings a nullity. The correct approach is to assess whether the irregularity resulted in specific prejudice or a gross deficiency affecting the fairness of the trial. In all five cases, there was no evidence that Scott's conduct compromised the integrity of the proceedings or the accused's fair trial rights. The accused had freely chosen Scott, and the records showed that he dis…
Source excerpt
S.A.P v S (Bail Appeal) (CAB 05/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 92 (2 June 2025)
The court found that while the appellant introduced new facts in his supplementary affidavit, these facts were not sufficiently compelling to alter the balance of the interests of justice in his favour. The seriousness of the offence, the domestic violence context, and the risk to the complainant remained paramount. The magistrate correctly applied the statutory framework under section 60(11)(c) and section 60(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and did not exercise her discretion wrongly. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of showing that the interests of justice permitted his release…
Source excerpt
Explore more
