Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
4 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal Law [2018] ZACC 35

Tarr v S (CCT07/18)

Tarr v S (CCT07/18) [2018] ZACC 35; 2019 (1) BCLR 151 (CC) (27 September 2018)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 07/18
Judges
Mogoeng, Zondo, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Petse, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that, although the extra-curial statement should not have been admitted in light of the Nkosi judgment, the conviction of the applicant was nonetheless supported by other compelling evidence, specifically ballistic evidence linking the murder weapon to the applicant and circumstantial facts establishing his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial judge did not rely solely on the inadmissible statement, and the remaining evidence was sufficient for conviction. The sentence imposed was not excessive given the brutal nature of the crime. Accordingly, the applicant…

Source excerpt

  • Admissibility Of Hearsay
  • Extra Curial Statements
  • Unfair Trial
  • Minimum Sentencing Legislation
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2017] ZAGPPHC 64

Babuli and Others v National Director of Public Prosecution and Another (CC32/14)

Babuli and Others v National Director of Public Prosecution and Another (CC32/14) [2017] ZAGPPHC 64 (24 February 2017)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
CC32/14
Judges
Strydom, Moshidi, Meyer

The appeal court found that the trial court erred in relying on extra-curial statements made by accused 1 and 7 to convict the appellants, as such statements are inadmissible against co-accused. The evidence of the single witnesses, Mr Mpandana and Ms Tlako, was found to be unreliable, contradictory, and lacking corroboration. The court held that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants conspired to commit murder or acted with a common purpose. The admissible evidence did not establish a definite agreement to kill the deceased, nor did it prove the appellants' inv…

Source excerpt

  • Admissibility Of Evidence
  • Extra Curial Statements
  • Single Witness Rule
  • Common Purpose
  • Conspiracy To Commit Murder
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2015] ZACC 19

Mhlongo v S; Nkosi v S (CCT148/14; CCT149/14)

Mhlongo v S; Nkosi v S (CCT148/14; CCT149/14) [2015] ZACC 19; 2015 (2) SACR 323 (CC); 2015 (8) BCLR 887 (CC) (25 June 2015)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT148/14; CCT149/14
Judges
Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jappie AJ, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Molemela AJ, Nkabinde J, Theron AJ, Tshiqi AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the common law position prior to Ndhlovu, which prohibited the admission of extra-curial statements by an accused against a co-accused, must be restored. The Court found that the distinction drawn in Ndhlovu between admissions and confessions is irrational and unjustifiable, as it leads to differential treatment of accused persons without a legitimate purpose. Section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act and section 3(2) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act do not alter the common law prohibition. Admitting extra-curial admissions against co-accused unjustifia…

Source excerpt

  • Admissibility Of Evidence
  • Extra Curial Statements
  • Hearsay Evidence
  • Right To Equality
  • Fair Trial Rights
  • Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2015] ZAGPJHC 142

S v Krejcir and Others (SS26/2014)

S v Krejcir and Others (SS26/2014) [2015] ZAGPJHC 142 (15 June 2015)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
SS26/2014
Judge
Lamont

The court held that the question posed by the state to accused 3 regarding why his counsel did not challenge a version put to Captain Ramuhala by counsel for accused 1 was impermissible. The evidence elicited from Captain Ramuhala was not admissible against accused 3, as he had no knowledge of the alleged meeting and was not privy to its arrangement. Statements put by counsel for one accused do not constitute evidence against another accused, and the principles in S v Boesak regarding the obligation to put a version apply only where admissible evidence exists. Since there was no admissible ev…

Source excerpt

  • Cross Examination
  • Admissibility Of Evidence
  • Extra Curial Statements
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2015] ZASCA 60

Machaba and Another v S (20401/2014)

Machaba and Another v S (20401/2014) [2015] ZASCA 60; [2015] 2 All SA 552 (SCA) ; 2016 (1) SACR 1 (SCA) (8 April 2015)

Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
20401/2014
Judges
Mpati, Majiedt, Schoeman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the incomplete record did not prejudice the appellants, as the available evidence was sufficient for proper adjudication. The court found no indication that the administration of the oath was improper, as the record did not show that the presiding judge failed to administer it. Extra-curial statements by co-accused were inadmissible against the second appellant, and the conviction was based on other evidence, including possession of the murder weapon and uncontested facts. The court concluded that the State had proved the guilt of both appellants beyond r…

Source excerpt

  • Admissibility Of Hearsay
  • Administration Of Oath
  • Extra Curial Statements
  • Common Purpose
  • Sentencing Regime
  • Minimum Sentences
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.