South Africa Case Law

Muravha v Minister of Police (179/2022)

Muravha v Minister of Police (179/2022) [2024] ZASCA 11; 2024 (4) SA 84 (SCA) (30 January 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

179/2022

Judges

Mocumie, Carelse, Hughes, Goosen, Tokota

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the absence of the trial record rendered it impossible for the full court to properly adjudicate the appeal, particularly where factual findings and credibility assessments were disputed. The attempts to reconstruct the record were inadequate, and both parties failed in their duty to preserve or reconstruct the record. The full court erred in assuming that the facts were not in dispute and in deciding the appeal without the record. The appellant was denied his constitutional right to a fair trial and appeal. Consequently, the only just remedy was to remit…

Source excerpt

• Lost Trial Record
• Reconstruction Of Record
• Fair Trial Right
• Misdirection On Facts
• Remittal For Rehearing

Oraclemed Health (Pty) Ltd v Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited and Another (31338/2013)

Oraclemed Health (Pty) Ltd v Hollard Life Assurance Company Limited and Another (31338/2013) [2023] ZAGPJHC 469 (17 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

31338/2013

Judge

Twala M L

The court granted an application to compel further particulars for trial, holding the defendants’ replies under Rule 21 were inadequate and the request was necessary for fair preparation.

• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 21
• Further Particulars
• Pleadings
• Fair Trial Right
• Civil-procedure
• Rule-21

Tiger Brands Limited and Others v Pillay and Others (Famous Brands and Another Intervening) (2019/25309; 2018/12835; 2019/36431)

Tiger Brands Limited and Others v Pillay and Others (Famous Brands and Another Intervening) (2019/25309; 2018/12835; 2019/36431) [2020] ZAGPJHC 160 (23 June 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/25309; 2018/12835; 2019/36431

Judge

C G Lamont

The High Court held that Tiger Brands could compel non-party document production by subpoena in the listeriosis class action, subject to access controls.

• Subpoena Production
• Class Action Procedure
• Strict Liability Consumer Protection
• Confidentiality And Discovery
• Fair Trial Right
• Relevance Of Evidence

Loni v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Health, Eastern Cape Bhisho (CCT54/17)

Loni v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Health, Eastern Cape Bhisho (CCT54/17) [2018] ZACC 2; 2018 (3) SA 335 (CC); 2018 (6) BCLR 659 (CC) (22 February 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 54/17

Judges

Mogoeng, Zondo, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Kathree-Setiloane, Kollapen, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Theron, Zondi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant had knowledge of the facts giving rise to his claim long before consulting an independent medical professional. The objective standard under section 12(3) of the Prescription Act requires that a reasonable person in the applicant's position would have suspected sub-standard treatment and sought further advice, given the ongoing pain, infection, and possession of his medical file. The Court distinguished the facts from those in Links, finding that the applicant's personal experience and available records were sufficient to trigger prescription.…

Source excerpt

• Prescription Act Section 12 3
• Medical Negligence
• Objective Standard Of Knowledge
• Reasonable Person Test
• Contractual Liability
• Fair Trial Right

Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (10193/2014)

Multichoice (Proprietary) Limited and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (10193/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 37; [2014] 2 All SA 446 (GP); 2014 (1) SACR 589 (GP) (25 February 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

10193/2014

Judge

Mlambo JP

The court held that the constitutional rights to freedom of expression and open justice must be balanced against the accused's right to a fair trial. Broadcasting of criminal proceedings is permissible, provided adequate safeguards are in place to prevent prejudice to the accused and witnesses. The court found that audio coverage of the entire trial does not pose the same risks as audio-visual coverage and should be allowed. Audio-visual and photographic coverage is permitted for certain portions of the trial, excluding the testimony of the accused and his witnesses, unless they consent. The…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Open Justice Principle
• Fair Trial Right
• Broadcasting Of Court Proceedings
• Section 173 Inherent Powers
• Balancing Of Competing Rights

South African Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. v Downer NO and Shaik (435/06)

South African Broadcasting Corporation Ltd. v Downer NO and Shaik (435/06) [2006] ZASCA 90; [2006] SCA 89 (RSA) ; [2007] 1 All SA 384 (SCA) (24 August 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

435/06

Judges

Howie, Harms, Streicher, Navsa, Heher

The court held that the application involved a clash of constitutional rights: the applicant's right to freedom of expression and the respondents' rights to a fair trial and privacy. The court emphasised that its discretion under section 173 of the Constitution must be exercised by balancing these rights in the interests of justice. The court found that the circumstances of the case, including the high public interest, the complexity and sensitivity of the appeals, and the pending prosecution of Zuma, created a material risk that live or recorded sound broadcasting would inhibit justice and i…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Fair Trial Right
• Court Process Regulation
• Privacy Rights