South Africa Case Law

Mapisa-Nqakula v S (CC33/2024)

Mapisa-Nqakula v S (CC33/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 371 (4 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC33/2024

Judge

Mosopa

The court held that the applicant failed to establish prima facie facts indicating the relevance of the 'C' section of the police docket to her fair trial rights. The applicant's arguments regarding the sequence of statements, hearsay, and lack of corroboration are matters for trial and do not justify disclosure at this stage. The respondent's refusal to disclose is supported by privilege, confidentiality, and lack of relevance. Regarding the military docket, the court found that ongoing representations and investigations preclude disclosure, but ordered the respondent to provide a progress r…

Source excerpt

• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Investigation Diary
• Section 204 Witness
• Privilege And Confidentiality
• Fair Trial Rights
• Access To Information

Reggio and Another v Regional Magistrate, Belville Specialised Commercial Crimes Court (Mrs Sonnenberg) and Others (18554/2023)

Reggio and Another v Regional Magistrate, Belville Specialised Commercial Crimes Court (Mrs Sonnenberg) and Others (18554/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 50 (14 February 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18554/2023

Judges

Mthimunye, D Thulare

The High Court found that the Magistrate had, in substance, considered the factors listed in section 342A(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, even if not verbatim. The record demonstrated that the Magistrate enquired into the duration and reasons for the delay, the seriousness and complexity of the charges, and whether any party could be blamed for the delay. The State had provided all documents in its possession and was not relying on the information sought by the Applicants. The Magistrate's refusal to strike the matter from the roll and decision to postpone for trial did not amount to a gros…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 342a
• Unreasonable Delay In Trial
• Review Of Magistrates Court Decisions
• Right To Fair Trial
• Pre Trial Conference
• Disclosure Of Evidence

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others

Ibex RSA Holdco Limited and Another v Tiso Blackstar Group (Pty) Ltd and Others [2024] ZASCA 166; 2025 (2) SA 408 (SCA) (4 December 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

862/2022

Judges

Zondi, Schippers, Hughes, Meyer, Tlaletsi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the forensic investigation report was not protected by legal professional privilege or litigation privilege under section 67 of PAIA, as its dominant purpose was to investigate accounting irregularities and enable Steinhoff to produce financial statements, not to obtain legal advice or prepare for litigation. The evidence did not support the assertion that litigation was pending or contemplated at the time of commissioning the report. Even if privilege existed, it was waived by Steinhoff's publication of the overview, which disclosed the substance and key…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Public Interest Override
• Corporate Fraud
• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Waiver Of Privilege

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Limpopo v Olivier (P12/2024)

Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Limpopo v Olivier (P12/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 146; 2025 (1) SACR 543 (LP) (4 November 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

P12/2024

Judges

G.C Muller, M. Monene

The court held that section 335 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not preclude the State from invoking section 60(14) in bail proceedings. Section 60(14) is a special provision that restricts access to information in the police docket, including statements made by the accused, for the purpose of bail unless the prosecutor directs otherwise. The general right under section 335 is ousted by the specific restriction in section 60(14) in the context of bail applications. The respondent, charged with a Schedule 6 offence, must invoke section 60(11) to seek access to his statement for bail purpose…

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Access To Police Docket
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Schedule 6 Offence
• Disclosure Of Evidence

Moses and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions (3518/2023)

Moses and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions (3518/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 120 (29 April 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3518/2023

Judge

Molitsoane

The High Court dismissed an application for a permanent stay of prosecution, finding the delay and missing material did not justify ending the criminal case.

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Right To Fair Trial
• Unreasonable Delay
• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Section 252a Trap
• Privileged Information

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

Van der Merwe v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (CC56/2020)

Van der Merwe v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (CC56/2020) [2023] ZALMPPHC 34 (14 April 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

CC56/2020

Judge

K.L. Pillay

The court found that the applicant had already received all relevant documents and expert reports required for the preparation of her defence. The additional documents sought, such as bench notes and registers, were not shown to be necessary or relevant to the defence, and the application was based on speculative allegations of possible irregularities without factual support. The right to a fair trial under section 35 of the Constitution does not extend to unlimited access to all documents in the State's possession, especially those not relied upon in prosecution. The applicant failed to esta…

Source excerpt

• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Right To Fair Trial
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Rights
• Ballistic Evidence
• Mental Observation Reports

Mitchell and Others v S (CC 04/2018)

Mitchell and Others v S (CC 04/2018) [2023] ZAECQBHC 13 (10 March 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

CC 04/2018

Judge

M Makaula

The High Court dismissed a post-conviction application for a special entry under section 317, holding it was late and lacked any basis to call witnesses.

• Special Entry
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 317
• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Witness Intimidation
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Special-entry

S v Murphy and Others (CC27/2018)

S v Murphy and Others (CC27/2018) [2022] ZAWCHC 278 (15 August 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC27/2018

Judge

D M Davis

The court set aside broad subpoenas to prosecution staff as an abuse of process, but confirmed a subpoena requiring a State advocate to testify.

• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Litigation Privilege
• Abuse Of Process
• Fair Trial Rights
• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Criminal Procedure Act

Nabolisa v Learned Magistrate Ms Syta Prinsloo and Another (12249/2018)

Nabolisa v Learned Magistrate Ms Syta Prinsloo and Another (12249/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 115 (8 April 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

12249/2018

Judges

TP Bokako, S Yacoob

The court found that the applicant's failure to request further particulars or challenge the forensic evidence during trial was a result of his own and his legal team's strategy, and cannot be remedied by review. The non-disclosure of working papers did not amount to a gross irregularity, as the applicant was provided with the docket and had opportunities to challenge the evidence. The conviction was for dealing in drugs, not a non-existing offence, and did not rely on an unconstitutional presumption. The conduct of the state's counsel, while robust, did not render the proceedings unfair. Mos…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Criminal Proceedings
• Fair Trial Rights
• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Onus In Criminal Trials
• Drug Offences
• Sentencing Irregularities