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
Hlongwani v Road Accident Fund (44993/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1052 (17 October 2024)
The court dismissed a Rule 38(2) application to lead expert evidence by affidavit, holding that fairness and the right to cross-examination outweighed convenience.
SAP SE v Systems Applications Consultants (Pty) Ltd t/a Securinfo and Another (376/2022) [2024] ZASCA 26; [2024] 2 All SA 639 (SCA); 2024 (5) SA 514 (SCA) (20 March 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conduct, including misconceiving the evidence, preventing proper cross-examination, and leaving the hearing while instructing that proceedings continue in his absence, created a reasonable apprehension of bias. The judge's belated and improbable explanation for his departure further exacerbated this perception. The cumulative effect of these actions demonstrated that the judge had closed his mind to the evidence and submissions of counsel, undermining the fairness of the trial. As a result, the proceedings before the judge were vitiated…
Source excerpt
Soni v S (465/2019) [2021] ZASCA 57; [2021] 3 All SA 362 (SCA); 2021 (2) SACR 241 (SCA) (5 May 2021)
Criminal appeal about murder, common purpose, incitement, and fair-trial rights. The appeal succeeded partly, with some convictions set aside and sentence reduced.
Engedi Electrical CC v National Bargaining Council for the Electrical Industry and Another (C260/18) [2019] ZALCCT 17 (24 July 2019)
Labour Court review of an arbitration award was dismissed. The court held the arbitrator acted reasonably and the applicant showed no reviewable irregularity.
K H Construction CC v Jenkins N.O. and Another (CA326/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 37 (22 May 2018)
The court found that the arbitrator committed a gross irregularity by accepting and relying on the second respondent's untested evidence after he abandoned cross-examination, thereby denying the appellant a fair opportunity to challenge material aspects of the case. This conduct prevented a fair trial of the issues and resulted in manifest prejudice to the appellant. Furthermore, the arbitrator exceeded his powers by awarding specific performance when only damages were pleaded and sought by the second respondent, without affording the parties an opportunity to address this relief. The appella…
Source excerpt
Van der Merwe and Another v Honourable Magistrate Netsooki NO and Another (403/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1206 (27 October 2016)
The High Court found that the magistrate's refusal to allow the applicants' attorney to complete cross-examination of the second respondent constituted gross irregularity. The court held that once oral evidence is directed, the opposing party must be allowed to fully cross-examine the witness unless the court specifically limits the scope of such evidence, which was not done in this case. The magistrate's interpretation of the Protection from Harassment Act was incorrect, as the Act does not require the complainant to merely confirm her affidavit but allows for full ventilation of disputed fa…
Source excerpt
Lebelo and Another v S (A646/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 226 (4 October 2012)
High Court appeal from convictions for armed robbery and firearm possession. Convictions were upheld, but sentences were reduced after considering delay and detention.
Miya v Kalaparsad t/a Nikiels Coach Tours and Others (D426/08) [2009] ZALCD 21 (9 February 2009)
The Labour Court dismissed a review application, finding no evidence that the commissioner unfairly curtailed cross-examination or denied procedural fairness.
S A Cleaning Services Ltd v Steel Mining and Commercial Workers Union and Others (J 1433/97) [2000] ZALC 36 (25 May 2000)
The court found that the CCMA commissioner committed a gross irregularity by accepting disputed evidence from the employee's representative without permitting the applicant to cross-examine the employee. The commissioner based his award on procedural unfairness without ensuring that the evidence was properly tested under oath. The court accepted the applicant's version that the employee did not testify under oath and that no opportunity for cross-examination was provided. This failure undermined the fairness of the proceedings and rendered the award reviewable. Consequently, the award was set…
Source excerpt
S v Motha (644/93) [1994] ZASCA 170 (24 November 1994)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that all three eyewitnesses for the State gave testimony at trial that materially differed from their prior police statements. The prosecutor failed to disclose these discrepancies and did not make the statements available for cross-examination, constituting a serious irregularity. This irregularity directly impacted the reliability and credibility of the identification evidence against the appellant. As there was no remaining admissible evidence identifying the appellant as the shooter, the conviction and sentence could not be sustained. The appeal was uphel…
Source excerpt
Explore more
