South Africa Case Law

Mavela v Outsurance Insurance Company Limited (2887/2021)

Mavela v Outsurance Insurance Company Limited (2887/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 95 (28 March 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2887/2021

Judge

JP Daffue

The court found that the defendant proved both defences relied upon: first, that the plaintiff provided false and misleading information material to the assessment of the claim, and second, that the plaintiff drove his vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol at the time of the collision. The evidence of the defendant's witnesses was credible, corroborative, and withstood cross-examination, while the plaintiff's version was illogical, improbable, and contradicted by both physical evidence and witness testimony. The insurance policy expressly excluded cover in cases of dishonesty or drivi…

Source excerpt

• Insurance Contract
• Material Misrepresentation
• Driving Under Influence
• Policy Repudiation

S v Jerline (R62/2024)

S v Jerline (R62/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 399 (20 December 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R62/2024

Judges

Van Rhyn, Van Zyl

The High Court set aside a DUI conviction and sentence on special review because the guilty plea did not admit all elements and the alternative charge was not properly dealt with.

• Criminal Procedure Act Review
• Driving Under Influence
• Plea Procedure
• Suspension Of Driving Licence
• Special-review
• Driving-under-influence

S v Ramantshane (R12/2024)

S v Ramantshane (R12/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 126 (9 May 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R12/2024

Judges

Majosi, Mhlambi

Special review of a guilty plea for driving under the influence. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence for incomplete admissions and procedural irregularities.

• Driving Under Influence
• Criminal Procedure Act
• National Road Traffic Act
• Suspended Sentence
• Licence Suspension
• Criminal-law

S v Mbalekwa - Review Judgment (CA&R 142/2023)

S v Mbalekwa - Review Judgment (CA&R 142/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 104 (5 September 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA&R 142/2023

Judges

GH Bloem, NG Beshe

The High Court set aside a magistrate’s conviction and sentence because the accused’s plea facts did not support the charge under the section relied on.

• Driving Under Influence
• National Road Traffic Act
• Plea Procedure
• Amendment Of Charge
• Driving-under-influence
• National-road-traffic-act

Van der Bank v S (A53/2021)

Van der Bank v S (A53/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 262; 2022 (1) SACR 307 (WCC) (10 December 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A53/2021

Judges

N Nyati, P A L Gamble

The court held that the two-hour period contemplated in section 65(2)(a) of the National Road Traffic Act commences at the time the driving stops, not at the time of arrest. The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the blood sample was drawn within two hours of the cessation of driving, as the evidence showed the driving stopped at approximately 01h15 and the blood was drawn at 03h29, outside the prescribed period. Consequently, the statutory presumption under section 65(3) could not apply, and the State did not establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The convic…

Source excerpt

• Driving Under Influence
• National Road Traffic Act
• Presumption Of Alcohol Content
• Evidentiary Presumptions

S v Maqam (R86/2021)

S v Maqam (R86/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 325 (18 November 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R86/2021

Judges

Molitsoane, Daniso

The accused's statement did not admit or provide facts regarding when the blood specimen was drawn or whether it was drawn within two hours of the alleged offence, as required by section 65(3) of the National Road Traffic Act. The absence of these admissions or supporting evidence means the presumption of guilt cannot operate. The proceedings were not in accordance with justice, and the court should have entered a plea of not guilty in terms of section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The conviction, sentence, and related orders must be set aside and the matter remitted for proper procedure.

Source excerpt

• Driving Under Influence
• National Road Traffic Act
• Presumptions Of Fact
• Plea Procedure
• Jurisdictional Facts

Hall v S (A173/21)

Hall v S (A173/21) [2021] ZAWCHC 231 (12 November 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A173/21

Judges

Goliath, Montzinger

The appeal court found that the evidence of Officer Botla regarding the time of blood draw was uncontested and supported by his pocketbook and affidavit, establishing that the blood was drawn within the statutory two-hour period. The inference that Dr Naidoo was a registered medical practitioner was justified by objective facts and not challenged by the appellant. The chain of custody was proven, as the seals were intact and no evidence of tampering was presented. The presumption under section 65(4) of the National Road Traffic Act applied, as there was no evidence of contamination. The secti…

Source excerpt

• Driving Under Influence
• Chain Of Custody
• Blood Alcohol Analysis
• Presumption Of Cleanliness
• Calibration Of Instruments

S v Singh (R19/21)

S v Singh (R19/21) [2021] ZAKZPHC 82 (1 April 2021)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

R19/21

Judges

Mossop AJ, Seegobin J

On automatic review, the High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction for drunk driving because the magistrate did not properly establish impairment or explain mandatory licence suspension.

• Driving Under Influence
• Automatic Review
• Conviction And Sentence
• Suspension Of Driving Licence
• Driving-under-influence
• Automatic-review

S v Sithole (CC40/2019)

S v Sithole (CC40/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 496 (2 September 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC40/2019

Judge

PJ Johnson

The accused was convicted on counts of sexual penetration without consent and robbery with aggravating circumstances after making formal admissions; other counts were withdrawn.

• Sexual Offences
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Trespass
• Driving Under Influence
• Criminal-law
• Sexual-offences

Kew v S (CA&R138/19)

Kew v S (CA&R138/19) [2020] ZAECGHC 46 (21 May 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R138/19

Judges

S Jikela, B Hartle

The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol, rejecting challenges to the blood sample's identity and contamination.

• Driving Under Influence
• Chain Of Evidence
• Statutory Presumption
• Contamination Of Evidence
• Burden Of Proof
• Driving-under-the-influence