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
Ndlovu v S (Reasons) (AR 145/2024) [2025] ZAKZPHC 27; 2025 (1) SACR 506 (KZP) (7 March 2025)
The High Court upheld an appeal against murder conviction and life sentence after finding the confession was obtained in violation of constitutional rights.
Brown and Others v S - Appeal (CA 45/2020) [2024] ZAECMKHC 8; 2024 (1) SACR 403 (ECMk) (23 January 2024)
The High Court upheld an appeal because the trial court failed to rule on admissibility under section 35(5) after invalid and warrantless searches.
Ofarah v S (A153/2011) [2013] ZAGPJHC 216 (26 August 2013)
The court found that the search warrant was fatally defective, lacking specificity as to the premises, articles, and persons to be searched, and failing to identify any offence or accused. The warrant did not comply with statutory or constitutional safeguards, and the search exceeded its terms. All evidence connecting the appellant to the charges, except for one count, was obtained through this unlawful search. Section 35(5) of the Constitution mandates exclusion of such evidence if its admission would render the trial unfair or be detrimental to the administration of justice. The court held…
Source excerpt
Matlou and Another v S (479/09) [2010] ZASCA 52; 2010 (2) SACR 342 (SCA) ; 2011 (1) BCLR 54 (SCA) ; [2010] 4 All SA 244 (SCA) (31 March 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the evidence of pointings-out and incriminating statements made by the first appellant was inadmissible, as it was obtained through police assault and in violation of constitutional rights under section 35(1) and (5) of the Constitution. The trial court erred in admitting this evidence, and without it, there was insufficient proof of murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, or unlawful possession of a firearm. However, the remaining uncontested evidence established that both appellants possessed and disposed of the deceased's property soon after hi…
Source excerpt
S v Van Staden (30/08) [2008] ZANCHC 20 (22 April 2008)
The conviction of the accused was based solely on evidence obtained by the arresting officer, constable Van Wyk, who questioned the accused without informing her of her constitutional right to remain silent. This evidence was unconstitutionally obtained and was decisive in contradicting the accused's alibi and securing her conviction. The failure of the defence attorney to object to the admission of this evidence did not cure its inadmissibility. The accused suffered substantial prejudice, and the admission of such evidence rendered the trial unfair and detrimental to the administration of ju…
Source excerpt
Explore more
