South Africa Case Law

TotalGaz Southern African (Pty) Ltd v Sapling Trade and Invest 26 (Pty) Ltd and Another (D11539/2022)

TotalGaz Southern African (Pty) Ltd v Sapling Trade and Invest 26 (Pty) Ltd and Another (D11539/2022) [2025] ZAKZDHC 18 (5 May 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D11539/2022

Judge

Shapiro

The plaintiff failed to discharge its burden of proof by not leading admissible evidence to establish the truth of the contents of the delivery notes and invoices upon which its claim was based. There was no agreement between the parties regarding the accuracy of these documents, and the plaintiff did not call the authors to testify. The court held that mere discovery and inclusion of documents in trial bundles, or confirmation that they form part of company records, does not render their contents admissible or prove the underlying transactions. In the absence of admissible evidence, there wa…

Source excerpt

• Absolution From Instance
• Burden Of Proof
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Hearsay Rule
• Liquidated Claim
• Suretyship

Rautini v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (853/2020)

Rautini v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (853/2020) [2021] ZASCA 158 (8 November 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

853/2020

Judges

Mbha, Carelse, Mothle, Phatshoane, Molefe

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the full court materially misdirected itself by relying on hearsay evidence contained in discovered documents without the authors being called to testify or the contents being properly admitted. The appellant's version was not adequately challenged in cross-examination, and the respondent failed to plead or put its alternative version to the appellant. The inference that the appellant fabricated his version was unsupported by evidence and unfairly drawn. The carriage doors were open throughout the journey, and PRASA's failure to keep them closed constitu…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Hearsay Rule
• Cross Examination
• Pleadings
• Negligence
• Liability For Open Train Doors

Mabaso v S (677/2020)

Mabaso v S (677/2020) [2021] ZASCA 98 (9 July 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

677/2020

Judges

Mbha, Mbatha, Carelse, Phatshoane, Mabindla-Boqwana

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside Theresa Mabaso’s murder conviction, holding that the evidence against her was inadmissible against a co-accused and insufficient to sustain guilt.

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Hostile Witness
• Accomplice Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Hearsay Rule
• Criminal-evidence

MEC for Police, Roads and Transport v Bornman (A51/2016)

MEC for Police, Roads and Transport v Bornman (A51/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 131 (17 July 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A51/2016

Judges

C.J. Musi, J.P. Daffue, J.J.F. Hefer

The appeal court set aside a road-liability judgment after finding key medical and accident records inadmissible hearsay and rejecting the respondent’s version.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Hearsay Rule
• Road Maintenance Liability
• Contributory Negligence
• Onus Of Proof
• Mutually Destructive Versions

Litako and Others v S (584/2013)

Litako and Others v S (584/2013) [2014] ZASCA 54; [2014] 3 All SA 138 (SCA); 2014 (2) SACR 431 (SCA); 2015 (3) SA 287 (SCA) (16 April 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

584/2013

Judges

Navsa, Ponnan, Leach, Petse, Swain

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the extra-curial admission made by the first appellant was inadmissible against his co-accused. The court reaffirmed the common law and statutory position that such statements are only admissible against their maker and not against others, regardless of whether they are characterised as admissions or confessions. The court found that the trial court erred in admitting the statement under section 3 of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as this provision does not override the exclusionary rule established by section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act and th…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Hearsay Rule
• Extra Curial Admissions
• Common Purpose
• Fair Trial Rights
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act

La Consortium & Vending CC t/a LA Enterprises v MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd In re: MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd v La Consortium & Vending CC t/a La Enterprises and Others (2011 (4) SA 577 (GSJ))

La Consortium & Vending CC t/a LA Enterprises v MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd In re: MTN Service Provider (Pty) Ltd v La Consortium & Vending CC t/a La Enterprises and Others (2011 (4) SA 577 (GSJ)) [2009] ZAGPJHC 63; 2004/20602, A5014/08 (17 August 2009)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2004/20602, A5014/08

Judges

Malan, Van Oosten, Mokgoatlheng

High Court appeal over unpaid goods and airtime. The court upheld admission of computer records and found delivery proved, dismissing the appeal with costs.

• Admissibility Of Electronic Evidence
• Hearsay Rule
• Electronic Communications And Transactions Act
• Contractual Liability
• Proof Of Delivery
• Electronic-evidence

S v Ndlovu and Another (250/91,16/92)

S v Ndlovu and Another (250/91,16/92) [1993] ZASCA 66 (24 May 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

250/91,16/92

Judges

Botha, Vivier, Goldstone

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the statements made by the appellants to police officers through interpreters were inadmissible as the interpreters were not called to testify, and thus the accuracy of the interpretation was not proven. The absence of the interpreters' evidence was fatal to the admissibility of the statements. There was no other admissible evidence against the second appellant, and the statement of the first appellant implicating the second was not admissible against him. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences for murder and rape against the second appellant were set…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Hearsay Rule
• Confession
• Interpretation Of Statements
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Rape And Murder