Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal Law [2017] ZAECBHC 15

David v Regional Court Magistrate and Others (153/17)

David v Regional Court Magistrate and Others (153/17) [2017] ZAECBHC 15; 2018 (1) SACR 702 (ECB) (14 November 2017)

Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Case number
153/17
Judge
Tokota

The application was dismissed because no magistrate's decision was subject to review; the decision to proceed before the second respondent was lawful under section 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the first respondent was unavailable and no evidence had been led. The applicant's legal representative agreed to the change, and no evidence of prejudice or grave injustice was presented. The alleged procedural defects regarding rule 53 were not material, as its provisions are not peremptory. The applicant failed to establish any factual or legal basis for the relief sought, and the continuati…

Source excerpt

  • Criminal Trial Postponement
  • Section 118 Criminal Procedure Act
  • Review Of Prosecutorial Decision
  • Motion Proceedings Requirements
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2008] ZAGPHC 118

Director of Public Prosecutions v King (CC257/2005)

Director of Public Prosecutions v King (CC257/2005) [2008] ZAGPHC 118 (24 April 2008)

Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Case number
CC257/2005
Judge
L O Bosielo

The court found that the application was premature, as the respondent had not yet applied for a postponement and any such application could only be properly adjudicated by the trial judge on the facts presented at the time. The court held that it would be improper to prejudge the respondent's intentions or to interfere with the discretion of the trial judge. The court further found that neither party was solely responsible for the delays in the proceedings and that the outstanding application for access to sections B and C of the docket should be resolved expeditiously to facilitate trial pre…

Source excerpt

  • Criminal Trial Postponement
  • Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act
  • Docket Disclosure
  • Fair Trial Rights
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.