South Africa Case Law

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

S v Evans and Another (01/2019)

S v Evans and Another (01/2019) [2019] ZANWHC 17 (9 May 2019)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

01/2019

Judges

R.D Hendricks, J.T Djaje

High Court review set aside theft convictions where the accused did not admit all elements of theft and the alternative count had ended in acquittal.

• Theft
• Possession Of Suspected Stolen Property
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 113
• Review Proceedings
• Magistrates Court Delay
• Guilty-plea

S v Mabe (A32/2016)

S v Mabe (A32/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 6 (21 January 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A32/2016

Judges

S Potterill, A J Bam

The High Court set aside a theft conviction where the accused’s guilty plea denied intent to permanently deprive, requiring a plea of not guilty instead.

• Theft
• Intention
• Guilty Plea
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 113
• Guilty-plea

S v Jeneker (070036)

S v Jeneker (070036) [2008] ZAECHC 120 (8 May 2008)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

070036

Judges

Liebenberg R, Van der Byl WR

The High Court set aside a magistrate’s conviction and sentence after the accused denied intent during a section 112(1)(b) inquiry, requiring section 113 procedures.

• Assault With Intent To Cause Grievous Bodily Harm
• Magistrates Court Irregularity
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 113
• Criminal-procedure
• Magistrates-court-procedure

S v Molalose (451/07)

S v Molalose (451/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 393 (13 November 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

451/07

Judges

Meyer, Saldulker

The High Court set aside a guilty-plea conviction for unlawful possession of unwrought gold, finding the magistrate had not ensured all offence elements were admitted.

• Possession Of Unwrought Precious Metals
• Elements Of Offence
• Guilty Plea Requirements
• Mining Rights Act
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 113
• Guilty-plea-review

S v Balatseng (CA 157/2003)

S v Balatseng (CA 157/2003) [2004] ZANWHC 23; 2005 (2) SACR 28 (B) (22 September 2004)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 157/2003

Judges

M.T.R. Mogoeng, B.E. Nkabinde, R.D. Hendricks

The appeal was upheld and the convictions and sentences set aside because the appellant's right to legal representation was not properly explained or afforded, and the court failed to assist him as an undefended accused. The trial was conducted in a manner that denied the appellant basic fairness and justice, resulting in procedural irregularities and a miscarriage of justice. The court did not ensure that the appellant's decision to defend himself was informed, nor did it adequately explain his procedural rights or assist him in presenting his case. The cumulative effect of these failures re…

Source excerpt

• Right To Legal Representation
• Unfair Trial
• Judicial Duty To Undefended Accused
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 113
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused

S v Majoro (2310/2003)

S v Majoro (2310/2003) [2004] ZAFSHC 53 (3 June 2004)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2310/2003

Judges

Wright, R, Lombard, R

The conviction was set aside because the trial court failed to properly consider the accused's claim of self-defence after his guilty plea was altered. In terms of section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act, once a plea of guilty is not accepted, the court must require further evidence before convicting. The absence of such evidence rendered the conviction invalid.

Source excerpt

• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Plea Procedure
• Self Defence
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 113