South Africa Case Law

S v Mrabule (Review) (HC16/2025)

S v Mrabule (Review) (HC16/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 72 (10 April 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC16/2025

Judges

T Masike, A Reddy

The proceedings before Acting Magistrate Wallis were not in accordance with justice because the accused did not unequivocally admit that his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol consumption, which is an essential element of the offence of driving under the influence. The questioning in terms of section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act was insufficient to establish all elements of the offence. As a result, the conviction and sentence must be set aside. The fine imposed, if paid, must be refunded to the accused, and the matter is referred to the National Prosecuting Authority to deci…

Source excerpt

• Drunken Driving
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112 1 B
• Charge Particularity
• National Road Traffic Act Section 65
• Conviction And Sentence Setting Aside

Fouche v S (A29/2021)

Fouche v S (A29/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 847 (18 November 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A29/2021

Judges

O K Matshitse, Selby Baqwa

The appeal court found that the trial magistrate correctly summarized the facts and evidence, properly evaluated the credibility of both State and defence witnesses, and applied the correct legal principles regarding the onus of proof and the standard of beyond reasonable doubt. The magistrate's acceptance of the State's evidence and rejection of the appellant's version was justified, and no material misdirection was identified. The factual findings of the trial court were presumed correct, and the appellant failed to demonstrate that the trial court was wrong in its acceptance of the State's…

Source excerpt

• Drunken Driving
• Assault
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Onus Of Proof
• Appeal On Conviction

Steyn v S (A281/2019)

Steyn v S (A281/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 654 (16 September 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A281/2019

Judges

Ledwaba, Janse van Nieuwenhuizen

Appeal against sentence for drunken driving. The High Court found a misdirection in sentencing, set aside the sentence, and remitted the matter for resentencing.

• Drunken Driving
• Sentencing Misdirection
• Correctional Supervision
• Probation Officer Report
• Drunken-driving
• Sentencing-appeal

S v Mthembu (374/17)

S v Mthembu (374/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1303 (18 December 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

374/17

Judges

M J Mosopa, N P Mngqibisa-Thusi

Automatic review of a guilty-plea conviction for drunken driving was successful because the magistrate’s section 112 questioning did not establish all elements of the offence.

• Drunken Driving
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• National Road Traffic Act Section 65
• Conviction And Sentence Review
• Criminal-procedure
• Guilty-plea-review

S v Funani (4/2015)

S v Funani (4/2015) [2015] ZAECBHC 8 (17 April 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

4/2015

Judges

B Hartle, D A van Zyl

The conviction was irregular because the magistrate failed to elicit a clear admission from the accused that his driving ability was impaired by alcohol, as required by law. The accused's statements before conviction did not amount to an admission of impairment, and his later comments in mitigation were coincidental and insufficient. Furthermore, the circumstances described by the accused suggested a possible defence or at least reasonable doubt as to whether his driving was impaired by alcohol or whether the collision was caused by another driver. The magistrate should have entered a plea of…

Source excerpt

• Drunken Driving
• Section 112 1 B Procedure
• Admissions On Guilty Plea
• Impaired Driving Ability

Boonzaaier v S (A137/13)

Boonzaaier v S (A137/13) [2014] ZAWCHC 72 (13 May 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A137/13

Judges

Baartman, Rogers

The High Court upheld a culpable homicide conviction after a fatal road collision, but set aside the drunken-driving conviction for insufficient proof of intoxication at the time.

• Culpable Homicide
• Drunken Driving
• National Road Traffic Act
• Expert Evidence
• Negligence
• Culpable-homicide

S v Mzimba (16/2012)

S v Mzimba (16/2012) [2012] ZAKZPHC 30; 2012 (2) SACR 233 (KZP) (7 June 2012)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

16/2012

Judges

Steyn, Jappie

The conviction and sentence were set aside because the accused did not admit all the essential elements of the offence, specifically the impairment of his driving ability due to alcohol. The Magistrate failed to question the accused on this critical element and did not inform him of his rights under section 35 of the NRTA or his right to make submissions regarding review or appeal. These procedural irregularities rendered the proceedings unjust. The matter was remitted to the trial court for a plea of not guilty to be entered and for the prosecution to proceed accordingly.

Source excerpt

• Drunken Driving
• Section 112 Plea Procedure
• Automatic Review
• Section 35 Nrta
• Unrepresented Accused Rights

S v Khumalo (138/2011)

S v Khumalo (138/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 80 (26 May 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

138/2011

Judges

C J Musi, Kruger

The magistrate erred in ordering endorsement of the accused's driver's licence for five years as a first offender, as such endorsement is only permissible following an order of suspension or cancellation, which was not made. The order declaring the accused unfit to possess a firearm under section 103(2) of the Firearms Control Act was incorrect; the accused automatically becomes unfit under section 103(1)(j) upon conviction for drunken driving, and no determination should have been made. The sentence imposed was unclear and disproportionate, with the suspended condition referencing a section…

Source excerpt

• Drunken Driving
• Driver Licence Endorsement
• Firearms Control Act
• Sentencing Clarity
• Suspended Sentence Conditions

Jaftha v S (687/2008)

Jaftha v S (687/2008) [2009] ZASCA 117; 2010 (1) SACR 136 (SCA) ; [2010] 1 All SA 403 (SCA) (25 September 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

687/2008

Judges

Lewis, Mlambo, Leach

The Supreme Court of Appeal allowed new evidence of post-conviction rehabilitation and, after a ten-year delay, replaced the prison sentence with a fine or imprisonment.

• Drunken Driving
• Sentencing Principles
• Admission Of New Evidence
• Rehabilitation
• Magistrates Court Procedure
• Sentencing-principles

Mapipa v S (CA & R 236/08)

Mapipa v S (CA & R 236/08) [2009] ZAECGHC 56; 2010 (1) SACR 151 (ECG) (26 August 2009)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA & R 236/08

Judges

Nepgen, Chetty

Appeal against a four-year sentence for culpable homicide and drunken driving dismissed; the court held the appellant’s gross negligence and post-collision conduct justified custody.

• Culpable Homicide
• Drunken Driving
• Sentencing Principles
• Gross Negligence
• Culpable-homicide
• Drunken-driving