South Africa Case Law

Van Jaarsveld v S; Ras v S (1105/2023; 885/2024)

Van Jaarsveld v S; Ras v S (1105/2023; 885/2024) [2025] ZASCA 92 (20 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1105/2023; 885/2024

Judges

Matojane, Unterhalter, Baartman, Tolmay, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that section 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not empower a trial court to alter a verdict after it has been pronounced; any such amendment constitutes a material misdirection. The trial court erred in convicting Van Jaarsveld on forgery after initially acquitting him, and this conviction was set aside. Regarding sentence, the Court held that both trial courts failed to adequately consider the appellants' personal circumstances, the impact on minor children, and the cumulative effect of sentences. The sentences imposed were found to be unduly harsh and…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act
• Sentencing Principles
• Fraud
• Forgery
• Theft
• Firearms Control Act

Singh v S (A106/2024)

Singh v S (A106/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 496 (19 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A106/2024

Judge

Kuny

The High Court dismissed Rushil Singh’s bail appeal on new facts, finding the alleged new material did not justify release and that he remained a flight risk.

• Bail Application
• Fraud
• Forgery
• Minimum Sentencing
• Flight Risk
• Bail-appeal

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Maine Management & Chartered Accountant (Pty) Ltd (4647/2023)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Maine Management & Chartered Accountant (Pty) Ltd (4647/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 415 (24 December 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4647/2023

Judge

Mhlambi

The High Court dismissed the NDPP’s forfeiture applications, finding the State had not proved the respondent’s banked funds were proceeds of unlawful activities.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Orders
• Fraud
• Money Laundering
• Supplementary Affidavits
• Municipal Tender Disputes

Mngomezulu v Mngomezulu and Others (26645/2021)

Mngomezulu v Mngomezulu and Others (26645/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 490 (13 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26645/2021

Judge

DA Turner

The court dismissed an application to set aside a will and property transfer, finding the applicant failed to prove forgery or fraud.

• Wills And Succession
• Forgery Of Will
• Estate Distribution
• Intestate Succession
• Transfer Of Property
• Wills-and-succession

African Paper Products (Pty) Ltd and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions: Eastern Cape and Another (250/2020)

African Paper Products (Pty) Ltd and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions: Eastern Cape and Another (250/2020) [2022] ZAECMKHC 90 (31 October 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

250/2020

Judges

Lowe, Bands

High Court review and mandamus application in ongoing criminal proceedings dismissed; the charge sheet and particulars were held sufficiently clear.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Particularity Of Charge Sheet
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Mandamus
• Fraud
• Forgery

Hartley v S (A180/2020)

Hartley v S (A180/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 153 (10 November 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A180/2020

Judges

Bozalek, Kusevitsky

Appeal against convictions for fraud and forgery succeeded because the state’s evidence was insufficient to prove a forged payslip or false representations.

• Fraud
• Forgery
• Admissibility Of Similar Fact Evidence
• Burden Of Proof
• Inferential Reasoning
• Hearsay Evidence

Mgoqi v S (CA&R 46/2017)

Mgoqi v S (CA&R 46/2017) [2020] ZAECGHC 33 (29 April 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 46/2017

Judges

Rugunanan, Mapoma

The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove the essential elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The expert evidence relied upon was based on hearsay and unproven data, rendering it unreliable. There was no direct evidence linking the appellant to the alleged unlawful interception, possession of listed equipment, or forgery. The cloned cards were not adequately described in the Regulations, and there was no proof of intent to defraud. The Magistrate erred by relying on speculative evidence and by drawing adverse inferences from the appellant's silence, rather than focusi…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Interception Of Communication
• Possession Of Listed Equipment
• Forgery
• Expert Evidence
• Onus Of Proof

Bannister's Printer (Pty) Limited v D and A Calenders CC and Another (1078/2016)

Bannister's Printer (Pty) Limited v D and A Calenders CC and Another (1078/2016) [2018] ZASCA 17 (15 March 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1078/2016

Judges

Lewis, Leach, Willis, Pillay, Mothle

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the purported settlement agreement was a forgery and did not reflect consensus between the parties. The appellant relied on a document that was fraudulently created by the respondents' legal representative, Lieberthal, and not on any conduct by the respondents that clothed Lieberthal with authority. The court distinguished the present case from Kruizenga, noting that agency by estoppel requires a representation rooted in the words and conduct of the principal, which was absent here. The maxim 'fraud unravels all' applies only between victim and perpetrato…

Source excerpt

• Settlement Agreement
• Agency By Estoppel
• Fraudulent Document
• Authority Of Attorney
• Forgery
• Costs Award

Louw v S (A327/2009)

Louw v S (A327/2009) [2018] ZAGPJHC 23 (15 February 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A327/2009

Judges

Fisher, Mashile

The High Court set aside a prison sentence and remitted the matter for fresh sentencing to correctional supervision after finding the trial court failed to consider it properly.

• Sentencing Principles
• Correctional Supervision
• Magistrates Discretion
• Appeal Against Sentence
• Criminal-sentencing
• Correctional-supervision

Mahlakoane v South African Revenue Service (JA118/13)

Mahlakoane v South African Revenue Service (JA118/13) [2018] ZALAC 1; [2018] 4 BLLR 337 (LAC); (2018) 39 ILJ 1034 (LAC) (25 January 2018)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA118/13

Judges

Tlaletsi, Ndlovu, Coppin

Appeal dismissed where later charges for forged SASSA letters were distinct from earlier misconduct, so double jeopardy did not bar the second hearing.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Double Jeopardy
• Forgery
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Double-jeopardy