South Africa Case Law

Moyo v S (A168/2017)

Moyo v S (A168/2017) [2025] ZAGPJHC 481 (20 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A168/2017

Judges

Strydom, P. G. Malindi, T.P. Bokako

The court found that the evidence of the police witnesses, particularly W/O Ramonyai, was not clear, satisfactory, or corroborated in all material respects. There were material discrepancies and improbabilities in their accounts regarding the arrest of the appellant and the discovery of the bank card. The failure of the State to call Captain Zulu, who was implicated by both accused and played a significant role in the arrest, justified an adverse inference against the State. The appellant's version was consistent and reasonably possibly true, and there was no reliable evidence or circumstance…

Source excerpt

• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Adverse Inference
• Burden Of Proof
• Failure To Call Witness
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances

Francois v Van Zyl (26612/2011)

Francois v Van Zyl (26612/2011) [2021] ZAGPJHC 559 (29 March 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26612/2011

Judge

Molahlehi

A rear-end collision claim succeeded after the court found prima facie negligence by the insured driver, despite the plaintiff not calling that driver.

• Motor Vehicle Collision
• Negligence
• Onus Of Proof
• Failure To Call Witness
• Motor-vehicle-collision
• Onus-of-proof

Dlamini v S (A134/2016)

Dlamini v S (A134/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 184 (20 October 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A134/2016

Judges

Daffue, Gela

The High Court upheld the appeal against a murder conviction, finding the trial court wrongly preferred an uncorroborated State witness over the appellant.

• Murder
• Single Witness Evidence
• Accomplice Cautionary Rule
• Credibility Assessment
• Failure To Call Witness
• Reasonable Doubt

Primedia Outdoor, Division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd v Phala NO and Others (JR 157/2011)

Primedia Outdoor, Division of Primedia (Pty) Ltd v Phala NO and Others (JR 157/2011) [2012] ZALCJHB 94 (31 August 2012)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR 157/2011

Judge

Molahlehi

Labour Court review of an arbitration award on unfair dismissal was dismissed, with a correction on inconsistency in discipline and costs awarded.

• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Locus Standi
• Inconsistency In Discipline
• Failure To Call Witness
• Gross Negligence
• Gross Dishonesty

S v Kunene (A619/2009)

S v Kunene (A619/2009) [2010] ZAGPJHC 26 (28 April 2010)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A619/2009

Judges

N.P. Willis, D.S.S. Moshidi, LP Halgryn

The majority (Willis J and Moshidi J) found that the identification evidence of Motusi Petlele, although by a single witness, was adequately corroborated by circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the murder weapon and the deceased's cellphone at the appellant's residence. They held that the totality of the evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the convictions and sentences were justified. The minority (Halgryn AJ) disagreed, finding that the identification evidence was unsatisfactory in material respects, particularly due to the lack of detail reg…

Source excerpt

• Identification Evidence
• Single Witness Rule
• Common Purpose
• Admissibility Of Hearsay
• Failure To Call Witness
• Burden Of Proof

S v Mokone (954/2004)

S v Mokone (954/2004) [2004] ZAFSHC 73 (29 July 2004)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

954/2004

Judges

Van Coppenhagen, Wright

The State failed to present direct evidence that the accused herself supplied liquor to persons under the age of 18, despite having obtained statements from minors who allegedly consumed liquor on the premises. The presence of another person selling liquor and the absence of direct testimony from the minors created reasonable doubt. The State did not discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence cannot stand and must be set aside.

Source excerpt

• Liquor Act Offence
• Burden Of Proof
• Failure To Call Witness
• Conviction Review