South Africa Case Law

Mooki and Others v S (A41/2023)

Mooki and Others v S (A41/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 110 (4 March 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A41/2023

Judges

JP Daffue, S Chesiwe

The court held that the admission of the complainant's evidence, which was not fully tested by cross-examination due to her suicide, constituted a misdirection and violated the appellants' constitutional right to a fair trial. The right to cross-examine is fundamental and not subject to discretion; where it cannot be exercised, the evidence must be excluded. Without the complainant's evidence, the State's case was insufficient, and the applications for discharge under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act should have been granted. The convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appe…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Cross Examination
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Rape
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Constitutional Rights

Lesala v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1785/21)

Lesala v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (JR1785/21) [2025] ZALCJHB 80 (21 February 2025)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1785/21

Judge

S.B Nhlapo

The court found that the sole witness for the third respondent, Mr Nicky Louw, was not effectively cross-examined due to his absence and technical difficulties during the virtual hearing. The Commissioner failed to make any ruling or mention of how the evidence was handled in light of the lack of cross-examination, which constituted a gross irregularity. The absence of proper cross-examination of the sole witness, who was also the complainant, undermined the fairness of the proceedings and the award. The court held that such an irregularity could not be cured except by reviewing and setting a…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Arbitration Review
• Procedural Irregularity
• Cross Examination
• Onus Of Proof

S v Porritt (SS40/2006)

S v Porritt (SS40/2006) [2025] ZAGPJHC 121 (13 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS40/2006

Judge

Spilg

The court found that Porritt's refusal to continue cross-examination of Ramsay was not based on any valid or lawful ground. The accused had been afforded ample opportunity and time to prepare and was fully aware of his rights and duties regarding cross-examination. His conduct constituted a deliberate and persistent attempt to delay the proceedings, as evidenced by a history of similar tactics and repeated findings by both this court and appellate courts. The interests of justice, including the rights of witnesses, complainants, and the public's confidence in the criminal justice system, outw…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Unreasonable Delay
• Cross Examination
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 342a
• Constitutional Limitation
• Self Represented Accused

Wolf v S - Ruling (16/2022)

Wolf v S - Ruling (16/2022) [2023] ZAECQBHC 62 (20 October 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

16/2022

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that the applicant had established prima facie entitlement to access sections 'B' and 'C' of the police docket, given the unusual circumstances of the case, including material changes in witness statements, concerns about the impartiality of the investigating officer and prosecutor, judicial criticism of prosecutorial conduct, and the late disclosure of potentially critical evidence. The State failed to demonstrate any objective or reasonable grounds for refusing disclosure that would realistically impede the ends of justice. The court applied the test from Panayiotou, holding…

Source excerpt

• Docket Disclosure
• Right To Fair Trial
• Litigation Privilege
• Cross Examination
• Disclosure Of Evidence

Moses v S (CA & R 42/22)

Moses v S (CA & R 42/22) [2023] ZANCHC 55 (8 September 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA & R 42/22

Judges

Phatshoane, Nxumalo

The High Court set aside a rape conviction because the trial court wrongly barred cross-examination on the complainant’s prior police statement.

• Cross Examination
• Fair Trial Rights
• Technical Irregularity
• Rape
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Setting Aside Conviction

Competition Commission and Another v SA Airlink (Pty) Ltd (CR280Feb18/SUB026Jun23)

Competition Commission and Another v SA Airlink (Pty) Ltd (CR280Feb18/SUB026Jun23) [2023] ZACT 37 (5 July 2023)

Court

Competition Tribunal

Case number

CR280Feb18/SUB026Jun23

Judges

T Ngcukaitobi, I Valodia, AW Wessels

The Competition Tribunal partly set aside a summons for document production, finding some requested documents did not exist, others were already provided, and one request was irrelevant.

• Tribunal Summons
• Document Production
• Burden Of Proof
• Cross Examination
• Competition-law
• Tribunal-summons

Hlubi v S (A121/2022)

Hlubi v S (A121/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 304 (6 June 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A121/2022

Judges

Mhlambi, Opperman

The High Court set aside convictions for attempted rape, kidnapping and pointing a firearm after finding the complainant’s cross-examination was never completed, depriving the appellant of a fair trial.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Cross Examination
• Single Witness Evidence
• Irregularity In Proceedings
• Fair-trial-rights
• Cross-examination

Blom v S (A95/2022)

Blom v S (A95/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 26 (6 February 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A95/2022

Judges

Loubser, Tsangarakis

The court found that the presiding officer failed to assist or guide the appellant, who was unrepresented, during his cross-examination of the complainant, particularly on the issue of consent. This omission constituted an irregularity that resulted in an unfair trial and a failure of justice. The conviction and sentence could not stand, and the matter was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for a decision on whether the appellant should be retried before another magistrate.

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Unrepresented Accused
• Cross Examination
• Judicial Guidance
• Rape
• Failure Of Justice

S v Porritt and Another (SS40/2006)

S v Porritt and Another (SS40/2006) [2023] ZAGPJHC 48 (25 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS40/2006

Judge

Spilg

The court ordered Porritt to continue cross-examining the witness first, rejected indefinite delay, and required Bennett to provide medical evidence if asserting incapacity.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Cross Examination
• Self Represented Accused
• Medical Incapacity
• Legal Aid
• Trial Management

S v Porritt and Another (SS40/2006)

S v Porritt and Another (SS40/2006) [2023] ZAGPJHC 49 (17 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS40/2006

Judge

Spilg

The High Court refused a postponement sought pending a constitutional challenge to section 67 of the Criminal Procedure Act and issued strict cross-examination directions.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Constitutional Invalidity Application
• Postponement Of Trial
• Cross Examination
• Abuse Of Process
• Criminal-procedure