South Africa Case Law

Ngaka v S (Appeal) (CA13/2019)

Ngaka v S (Appeal) (CA13/2019) [2025] ZANWHC 137 (7 August 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA13/2019

Judges

R D Hendricks, M Morgan

The trial court failed to conduct a comprehensive and effective enquiry under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act to establish whether the complainant understood the distinction between truth and a lie and the implications of lying. The superficial questioning and lack of proper admonishment rendered the complainant's evidence inadmissible. Without this evidence, the remaining evidence presented by the State was insufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The failure to comply with the statutory requirements constituted a fatal misdirection, necessitating the se…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Child Witnesses
• Section 164 Criminal Procedure Act
• Burden Of Proof
• Fair Trial Rights

Ntuli v S (128/2023)

Ntuli v S (128/2023) [2025] ZASCA 114 (30 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

128/2023

Judges

Matojane, Unterhalter, Koen, Coppin, Dawood

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State did not indicate in the charge sheet, nor at any stage of the proceedings, that it intended to rely on the doctrine of common purpose in respect of the attempted murder counts. The evidence presented was contradictory regarding the appellant's direct participation, and the State's case was prosecuted on the basis of individual culpability. The full court erred in confirming the convictions by applying common purpose, as the appellant was not forewarned and could not properly defend himself against that basis for conviction. This amounted to a vi…

Source excerpt

• Common Purpose
• Fair Trial Rights
• Charge Sheet Requirements
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Dlamini v S (Appeal) (CA34/2023)

Dlamini v S (Appeal) (CA34/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 136 (30 June 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 34/2023

Judges

Morris, Laubscher

The High Court dismissed an appeal against rape and kidnapping convictions and a 20-year sentence, finding no material misdirection, bias, or sentencing error.

• Rape
• Kidnapping
• Minimum Sentencing
• Cumulative Effect Of Sentences
• Fair Trial Rights
• Judicial Bias

Sithole and Another v S (AR370/17)

Sithole and Another v S (AR370/17) [2025] ZAKZPHC 68 (20 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR370/17

Judges

Harrison, Mossop

The court found that the confessions of both appellants were inadmissible due to multiple constitutional and procedural violations. The officers who took the confessions were not independent from the investigating team, and the reasons for not securing a magistrate were vague and insufficient. The appellants were not properly afforded their rights to legal representation prior to making statements, and requests for legal consultation were ignored. There was no medical examination to verify allegations of assault, and the process lacked safeguards to ensure voluntariness and reliability. The a…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Legal Representation
• Self Incrimination
• Fair Trial Rights
• Voluntariness Of Statements

Mlota v S (A338/2023)

Mlota v S (A338/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 604; 2025 (2) SACR 197 (GP) (13 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A338/2023

Judges

Millar, More

The High Court set aside a life sentence for rape and replaced it with 15 years after finding the State had not proved a domestic relationship.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Rape
• Domestic Relationship Definition
• Fair Trial Rights
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Criminal-law

Ngcobo v S (AR 247/24)

Ngcobo v S (AR 247/24) [2025] ZAKZPHC 55 (12 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 247/24

Judges

Harrison, Radebe, P Bezuidenhout

The court found that the appellant's confession was inadmissible because the police were aware that he had legal representation and failed to allow him to consult with his attorney prior to making the statement. The evidence of the attorney, Mr Manzini, that he was to be present for any statement was never challenged or rejected. The conviction was based solely on the confession, and the absence of proper consultation constituted a material breach of the appellant's constitutional rights under section 35 of the Constitution. The admission of the confession rendered the trial unfair and was de…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Legal Representation
• Section 35 Constitution
• Fair Trial Rights
• Exclusion Of Evidence
• Trial Within A Trial

S v Philander and Others (Special Review) (29/2025)

S v Philander and Others (Special Review) (29/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 291 (6 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

29/2025

Judges

Le Grange, Holderness

The High Court held that while Scott's appearance as a struck-off advocate was irregular and constituted a criminal offence under the Legal Practice Act, the Legislature did not intend such irregularity to render proceedings a nullity. The correct approach is to assess whether the irregularity resulted in specific prejudice or a gross deficiency affecting the fairness of the trial. In all five cases, there was no evidence that Scott's conduct compromised the integrity of the proceedings or the accused's fair trial rights. The accused had freely chosen Scott, and the records showed that he dis…

Source excerpt

• Right Of Appearance
• Legal Practitioner Struck Off
• Fair Trial Rights
• Gross Irregularity
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Legal Practice Act

S v Msila and Others (Interim Ruling) (CC04/2024)

S v Msila and Others (Interim Ruling) (CC04/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 244 (4 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC04/2024

Judge

Wille

The court refused an accused’s section 174 discharge application at the close of the State case, finding the evidence sufficient to require the defence.

• Section 174 Discharge
• Prima Facie Evidence
• Credibility Assessment
• Fair Trial Rights
• Section-174-discharge
• Criminal-procedure

S v Zuma and Another (CCD30/2018)

S v Zuma and Another (CCD30/2018) [2025] ZAKZPHC 56 (3 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

CCD30/2018

Judge

Chili

The court held that it is not competent to order the State to stop the prosecution under section 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as this discretion lies exclusively with the prosecuting authority. The relief sought by Thales and Mr Zuma was therefore not available. The court further found that the deaths of Messrs Maynot and Thétard, while unfortunate, did not amount to irreparable or insurmountable prejudice sufficient to justify stopping the prosecution or acquitting the accused. The alleged prejudice was speculative, and the availability and value of other witnesses could only be properly…

Source excerpt

• Withdrawal Of Prosecution
• Fair Trial Rights
• Irreparable Prejudice
• Section 6 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 172 Constitution

Rathebe v S (1571/2024)

Rathebe v S (1571/2024) [2025] ZASCA 73 (30 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1571/2024

Judges

Mocumie, Keightley, Baartman, Phatshoane, Henney

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the only evidence presented by the State against the appellant was the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, which did not meet the high threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt required for conviction. The appellant's version was exculpatory and supported by the evidence, and the trial court erred in its assessment by failing to consider alternative explanations for the complainant's injuries and by not giving the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The Court emphasized the constitutional rights to a fair trial and equal treatment, holding tha…

Source excerpt

• Single Witness Evidence
• Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
• Fair Trial Rights
• Equal Treatment
• Condonation For Late Filing