Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
S v Porritt and Another (SS 40/2006) [2021] ZAGPJHC 382; 2022 (1) SACR 88 (GJ) (26 March 2021)
High Court ruling admitting Hong Kong documents obtained by letters of request as trade and business records under s 5(2)(b) of the ICCMA.
Tulip Diamonds Fze v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (810/2011) [2012] ZASCA 111; [2012] 4 All SA 401 (SCA); 2013 (1) SACR 323 (SCA) (7 September 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed Tulip Diamonds’ appeal, holding it had not proved a confidential interest giving it standing to challenge the subpoena.
Falk and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (689/09) [2010] ZASCA 117; 2011 (1) SACR 105 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 354 (SCA) (23 September 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal over a foreign restraint order registered under the ICCMA and related interdicts under POCA.
Falk and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (8420/03) [2009] ZAWCHC 208 (10 July 2009)
The High Court refused to set aside a registered German restraint order and related interdicts, holding the German criminal proceedings were not concluded and the restraint remained in force pending appeal.
Zuma and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions (232/07) [2007] ZASCA 135; 2008 (1) SACR 298 (SCA); 2007 JDR 1141 (SCA); [2008] JOL 21053 (SCA) (8 November 2007)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the issuing of a letter of request under s 2(2) of the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act does not affect or compromise any rights of the appellants. The section permits assistance to be sought during a criminal investigation, including the gathering of evidence for a possible prosecution, and is not limited to determining whether an offence has been committed. The appellants, although indicted, had not yet been called upon to plead, and thus no trial had commenced; the judge was competent to act under s 2(2). The court found that the appe…
Source excerpt
National Director of Public Prosecutions v In Re: An Application for the Issuing of a Letter of Request in terms of Section 2(2) of the International Co-operaion in Criminal Matters Act No 75 of 1996, Ex Parte (71/07/01) [2007] ZAGPHC 197 (14 September 2007)
The court held that section 2(2) of the International Co-operation in Criminal Matters Act is intended for investigative purposes prior to the institution of criminal proceedings, and does not confer a right to notice or participation on persons under investigation. The distinction between section 2(1) and section 2(2) is clear: only when proceedings are before a court does the affected person have a right to be heard. Zuma was not an accused before a court at the time of the main application, and the proceedings had been struck from the roll at his own insistence. The fact that he was notifi…
Source excerpt
Explore more
