South Africa Case Law

S v Mayimele (Review) (109/2024)

S v Mayimele (Review) (109/2024) [2025] ZALMPTHC 3 (4 March 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

109/2024

Judges

Semenya, TC Tshidada

The magistrate failed to properly invoke section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act by not eliciting sufficient factual admissions from the accused to establish all elements of negligent driving. The questioning was generic and did not clarify the circumstances under which the accused drove, making it impossible to conclude that he acted without the care expected of a reasonable driver. This constitutes a material irregularity that vitiates both the conviction and sentence. Furthermore, the condition of suspension in the sentence was formulated too broadly, potentially encompassing offen…

Source excerpt

• Negligent Driving
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Conviction Irregularity
• Sentencing Conditions

S v Nthama (HC 12 /2023)

S v Nthama (HC 12 /2023) [2023] ZANWHC 202 (1 November 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC 12 /2023

Judges

DJAJE, MFENYANA

The High Court reviewed and set aside a housebreaking conviction after finding the accused’s guilty-plea statement did not admit all elements of the offence.

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Guilty Plea
• Elements Of Offence
• Housebreaking
• Review Proceedings
• Guilty-plea

Bagananeng v S (CA & R 33/23)

Bagananeng v S (CA & R 33/23) [2023] ZANCHC 68 (27 October 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA & R 33/23

Judges

Phatshoane, Stanton

The trial court's procedure in allowing the prosecutor to question the accused during section 112(1)(b) plea proceedings constituted impermissible cross-examination and violated the accused's fair trial rights. The accused's responses did not amount to admissions of guilt and should have triggered the entry of a plea of not guilty under section 113. The irregularity was uncovered early in the proceedings, and remittal to the same magistrate would be undesirable due to potential prejudice. The proceedings were not in accordance with justice and must be set aside, with the matter remitted for t…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Fair Trial Rights
• Cross Examination At Plea Stage
• Remittal Under Section 312
• Magistrates Court Review

September v Additional Magistrate for the District of Paarl and Another - Review Judgment (2855/2023)

September v Additional Magistrate for the District of Paarl and Another - Review Judgment (2855/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 247 (2 October 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2855/2023

Judges

Henney, Le Grange

The court found that the mechanical recording of the proceedings did not reflect any explanation of the applicant's right to legal representation prior to his plea. This omission constituted a gross irregularity, as the right to legal representation is a fundamental component of a fair trial under section 35 of the Constitution. The Magistrate's explanation that the 'short procedure' under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act required the applicant to proceed without legal representation was erroneous and improper. The indiscriminate use of section 112(1)(a) should not undermine fa…

Source excerpt

• Right To Legal Representation
• Gross Irregularity
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Fair Trial Rights

S v Ndzishe (221/2023; 222/2023)

S v Ndzishe (221/2023; 222/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 167; 2023 (2) SACR 419 (WCC) (20 July 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

221/2023; 222/2023

Judges

Lekhuleni JD, Nziweni CN

On automatic review, the High Court set aside two drug-possession convictions because guilty-plea questioning was inadequate and legal representation issues arose.

• Possession Of Drugs
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Forensic Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Legal Representation
• Remittal Under Section 312

S v Mantshongo (CC 53/2022)

S v Mantshongo (CC 53/2022) [2023] ZAECMKHC 7 (19 January 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CC 53/2022

Judge

T Malusi

The accused pleaded guilty to four rape counts and one robbery count. The High Court accepted his section 112(2) admissions and convicted him on all charges.

• Rape
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Sexual Offences Amendment Act
• Intent
• Consent

S v Mohadin (25/2022; 9/451/2021; 01/2022)

S v Mohadin (25/2022; 9/451/2021; 01/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 59 (25 April 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

25/2022

Judges

Nziweni, Lekhuleni

Automatic review set aside a theft conviction and 12-month sentence because the guilty-plea questioning under section 112(1)(b) was inadequate.

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Guilty Plea Questioning
• Review Of Conviction
• Rights Of Accused
• Criminal-procedure-act-section-112
• Guilty-plea-questioning

Khathide v S (840/2020)

Khathide v S (840/2020) [2022] ZASCA 17 (14 February 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

840/2020

Judges

Molemela, Mokgohloa, Mothle, Phatshoane, Molefe

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in refusing leave to appeal against sentence after the magistrate relied on facts not proved in the plea record.

• Leave To Appeal
• Sentencing Misdirection
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Reasonable Prospects Of Success
• Leave-to-appeal
• Sentencing-misdirection

S v Moses (R40/2021)

S v Moses (R40/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 191 (12 August 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R40/2021

Judges

Mathebula, Van Rhyn

The High Court set aside a Magistrate’s Court conviction and sentence after finding that the accused’s section 112(2) guilty-plea statement was defective and the proceedings irregular.

• Stock Theft
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Fair Trial Rights
• Irregularity In Proceedings
• Criminal-procedure-act-section-112
• Stock-theft

Maluleka v S and Another (A245/2019)

Maluleka v S and Another (A245/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 938 (8 November 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A245/2019

Judges

NE Nkosi, Sardiwalla

The court found that the applicant failed to establish reasonable grounds for the recusal of Mr. Nel. There was no evidence of actual bias or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to apprehend bias. The suspicion raised by the applicant was not based on objective facts and did not meet the legal threshold required for recusal. The court held that accepting the applicant's argument would undermine the proper functioning of criminal procedure, particularly in cases where a plea of guilty is not accepted and the trial proceeds. Accordingly, the application to set aside Mr. Nel's refu…

Source excerpt

• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Appearance Of Bias
• Onus Of Proof
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 113