South Africa Case Law

S v Moseki (R11/2025)

S v Moseki (R11/2025) [2025] ZAFSHC 121 (24 April 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R11/2025

Judges

Reinders, Van Rhyn

The court found that the summary enquiry into Mr Moseki's failure to appear was not conducted in accordance with justice. The magistrate failed to properly inform Mr Moseki, who was unrepresented, of the nature of the proceedings, the charge, and his rights, including the onus to provide a reasonable excuse. The magistrate applied the incorrect statutory provision (section 72(4) instead of section 170(1)) and did not afford Mr Moseki a fair opportunity to prepare a defence or call witnesses. The enquiry did not meet the requirements of fairness, and the proceedings were prejudicial to Mr Mose…

Source excerpt

• Failure To Appear
• Summary Enquiry
• Reverse Onus
• Fair Trial Rights

S v Mramba (Review) (CA & R 7/2025)

S v Mramba (Review) (CA & R 7/2025) [2025] ZAECBHC 2 (11 February 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

CA & R 7/2025

Judges

B Hartle, L Rusi

The High Court set aside a magistrate’s conviction and sentence for failure to appear while on bail, holding the accused had not been separately charged.

• Bail Forfeiture
• Failure To Appear
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 67
• Summary Enquiry
• Bail-forfeiture
• Failure-to-appear

S v Nkosi (Special Review) (CA&R182/2024)

S v Nkosi (Special Review) (CA&R182/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 115; 2025 (1) SACR 558 (ECMk) (22 October 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA&R182/2024

Judges

N G Beshe, A S Zono

The magistrate's procedure of summarily enquiring into the accused's failure to appear and imposing a fine under Section 67A was not in accordance with the requirements of criminal procedure. Section 67A creates a criminal offence, and the accused must be tried according to the normal rules and standard of proof applicable in criminal cases. Section 67 provides a separate procedure for provisional cancellation and forfeiture of bail, which was not followed. The summary enquiry and imposition of fines without proper criminal proceedings are not authorised by either Section 67A or Section 67. T…

Source excerpt

• Failure To Appear
• Bail Forfeiture
• Summary Enquiry
• Criminal Liability For Nonattendance

S v Sompane - Review (B403/2022; R36/2023)

S v Sompane - Review (B403/2022; R36/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 324 (15 August 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

B403/2022; R36/2023

Judges

Molitsoane, Thamae

High Court review setting aside a conviction and sentence after a magistrate wrongly used section 170(2) following final bail forfeiture.

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 304
• Failure To Appear
• Bail Forfeiture
• Procedural Irregularity
• Criminal-procedure-act
• Failure-to-appear

S v Ngete (25/2023)

S v Ngete (25/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 116 (19 May 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

25/2023

Judges

Henney, Sher

The High Court set aside a magistrate’s conviction for failure to appear while on bail and held that the concurrent sentence order was incompetent.

• Failure To Appear
• Bail Forfeiture
• Concurrent Sentences
• Theft
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Summary Enquiry

Ngakantsi v S (CAF 05/2022)

Ngakantsi v S (CAF 05/2022) [2023] ZANWHC 130 (16 January 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CAF 05/2022

Judges

Hendricks, Malowa, Mfenyana

The court upheld convictions for failing to appear, reduced the fines to the statutory maximum, and suspended part of a five-year corruption sentence.

• Failure To Appear
• Sentencing Discretion
• Corruption
• Maximum Statutory Fine
• Criminal-appeal
• Failure-to-appear

S v Mashego (R24/2021; A360/2020)

S v Mashego (R24/2021; A360/2020) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 36; 2021 (2) SACR 520 (MM) (10 August 2021)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

R24/2021; A360/2020

Judges

TV Ratshibvumo, H Roelofse

High Court review setting aside a conviction and six-month sentence for failure to appear, due to irregular procedure, wrong statutory basis, and denied rights.

• Criminal Procedure Act
• Failure To Appear
• Automatic Review
• Right To Legal Representation
• Judicial Irregularity
• Criminal-procedure-act

S v Ntepe and Another (R 85/2020)

S v Ntepe and Another (R 85/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 78 (11 March 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R 85/2020

Judges

Reinders, Chesiwe

The convictions of both accused for contravening section 170(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 were set aside because the enquiry into their failure to appear was not conducted in accordance with the requirements of procedural fairness. The accused were not properly informed of their rights, including the right to remain silent and the consequences thereof, and the enquiry was conducted under the incorrect statutory provision. The magistrate conceded the procedural error, and the court found that the convictions could not stand, even though the sentences had already been served. It…

Source excerpt

• Failure To Appear
• Procedural Fairness
• Section 170 Criminal Procedure Act
• Rights Of Accused

S v Kondile (11/2020)

S v Kondile (11/2020) [2021] ZAECBHC 3 (12 February 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

11/2020

Judges

Hartle, Zilwa

On special review, the High Court set aside a magistrate’s conviction and sentence for failure to appear, holding that section 67A required a formal charge and proper trial.

• Failure To Appear
• Bail Forfeiture
• Criminal Liability For Absconding
• Failure-to-appear
• Bail-forfeiture
• Criminal-procedure-act

Ngakantsi v S (1020/2020)

Ngakantsi v S (1020/2020) [2020] ZASCA 94 (19 August 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1020/2020

Judges

Ponnan, Schippers, Ledwaba

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that, based on the medical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the appellant's failure to appear, there are reasonable prospects that a court on appeal could find his absence was not due to fault on his part. Furthermore, the fines imposed for the contraventions of s 72(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act appear to exceed the statutory maximum. Regarding the corruption conviction, the appellant was a first offender, the amount involved was not substantial, and he remained employed by SAPS. These factors provide reasonable prospects that an appellate court…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Failure To Appear
• Sentencing Discretion
• Corruption
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Prevention And Combating Of Corrupt Activities Act