South Africa Case Law

Ndlhlovu v Head of Case Management Committee and Others (2024/00410)

Ndlhlovu v Head of Case Management Committee and Others (2024/00410) [2024] ZAGPJHC 919 (13 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/00410

Judge

Du Plessis

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of harassment, intimidation, or unlawful discrimination by the respondents. The applicant's allegations regarding his classification as an immigrant and his parole status were not supported by documentary proof or affidavits confirming the unlawfulness of his detention or classification. The respondents' version, supported by official records and disciplinary findings, prevailed. The court ordered verification of the applicant's identity document and directed that, if confirmed as valid, his nationality be correctly refl…

Source excerpt

• Equality And Dignity
• Xenophobia And Nationality Discrimination
• Protection Of Harassment Act
• Intimidation Act
• Prisoner Rights
• Parole Procedure

Sandlana v Minister of Police and Another (5546/2016)

Sandlana v Minister of Police and Another (5546/2016) [2023] ZAWCHC 102; 2023 (2) SACR 84 (WCC) (11 May 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5546/2016

Judge

P.A.L Gamble

The High Court held that the plaintiff’s arrest for intimidation was unlawful because the officer lacked reasonable suspicion under section 40(1)(b) of the CPA.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Intimidation Act
• Damages Assessment
• Deprivation Of Liberty
• Quantification Of Non Patrimonial Loss
• Unlawful-arrest

S v White (R19/2022)

S v White (R19/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 173; 2022 (2) SACR 511 (FB) (17 June 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R19/2022

Judges

DAFFUE, MOLITSOANE

The High Court set aside a conviction and sentence for intimidation after finding the charge sheet and plea statement confusing and the proceedings unjust.

• Intimidation Act
• Conviction Review
• Plea Procedure
• Statutory Interpretation
• Intimidation-act
• Criminal-procedure

Ajose v S (A624/2017)

Ajose v S (A624/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1083 (14 May 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A624/2017

Judges

Neukircher, Rangata

The court found that the complainant's evidence was credible and sufficiently corroborated by her emotional distress and panic attacks. The appellant's denial was inconsistent and unsupported by his witnesses. The State proved two counts of rape and three counts of sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt, not the eight counts of rape originally charged. The appellant abused a position of trust and committed repeated sexual offences against a minor. No substantial or compelling circumstances justified a deviation from the prescribed life sentence for rape. The sentences for sexual assault and i…

Source excerpt

• Rape Of Minor
• Intimidation Act
• Sexual Assault
• Sentencing Principles
• Single Witness Caution
• Competent Verdicts

Kotze v Minister of Police (A3148/2018)

Kotze v Minister of Police (A3148/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 99 (15 March 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3148/2018

Judges

Sutherland, Nkosi-Thomas

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an unlawful arrest claim, holding the arrest and detention were justified and the magistrate had misapplied absolution.

• Unlawful Arrest
• Intimidation Act
• Onus Of Proof
• Damages For Unlawful Detention
• Unlawful-arrest
• Intimidation-act

Fuduswa v Minister of Police (155/2016)

Fuduswa v Minister of Police (155/2016) [2018] ZAECGHC 60 (17 July 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

155/2016

Judge

T Malusi

The High Court held that the plaintiff’s arrest and overnight detention were unlawful because the officer lacked reasonable grounds for a Schedule 1 suspicion.

• Unlawful Arrest And Detention
• Damages Assessment
• Section 40 Criminal Procedure Act
• Intimidation Act
• Right To Personal Liberty
• Pleading Requirements

Moyo v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others; Sonti v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (387/2017; 386/2017)

Moyo v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others; Sonti v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (387/2017; 386/2017) [2018] ZASCA 100; 2018 (8) BCLR 972 (SCA); [2018] 3 All SA 342 (SCA); 2018 (2) SACR 313 (SCA) (20 June 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

387/2017; 386/2017

Judges

Maya, Wallis, Mbha, Van der Merwe, Makgoka

The majority held that section 1(2) of the Intimidation Act is unconstitutional as it places an evidentiary burden on the accused to disclose the content of their defence before the close of the prosecution's case, thereby infringing the right to a fair trial and the right to remain silent. This limitation is not justified under section 36 of the Constitution. Section 1(2) was declared invalid, with retrospective effect limited to pending trials or appeals. On section 1(1)(b), the majority found it overbroad and incompatible with the right to freedom of expression, as it criminalises conduct…

Source excerpt

• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Reverse Onus
• Freedom Of Expression
• Fair Trial Rights
• Intimidation Act
• Presumption Of Innocence

Moyo and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others; Sonti and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (28532/14; 41487/14)

Moyo and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others; Sonti and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (28532/14; 41487/14) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1077; 2017 (1) SACR 659 (GP) (20 December 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28532/14; 41487/14

Judge

N V Khumalo

The court held that section 1(1)(b) of the Intimidation Act does not unjustifiably infringe the right to freedom of expression, as the conduct and speech targeted by the section fall within the exclusion criteria of section 16(2) of the Constitution, namely incitement to imminent violence. The section is subject to an objective test, requiring that the conduct instill reasonable fear of harm, and is justified in the context of South Africa's high levels of violence and intimidation. Regarding section 1(2), the court found that although the provision imposes a reverse onus on the accused to pr…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Reverse Onus
• Presumption Of Innocence
• Intimidation Act
• Limitation Of Rights
• Fair Trial Rights

S v Masilo (15/2016)

S v Masilo (15/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 23 (11 February 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

15/2016

Judges

K.J Moloi, S. Chesiwe

On special review, the High Court set aside the withdrawal of a criminal charge after plea, holding the accused was entitled to a verdict and the prosecution had to proceed lawfully.

• Withdrawal Of Charge
• Intimidation Act
• Plea And Verdict
• Autrefois Acquit
• Withdrawal-of-charge
• Criminal-procedure-act

Shabalala v S (A420/2014)

Shabalala v S (A420/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 544 (28 January 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A420/2014

Judge

Ranchod

The appeal was upheld on the basis that multiple procedural irregularities occurred during the trial, including the improper administration of the oath to witnesses, failure to properly address the psychiatric report and mental observation process, and infringement of the appellant's rights to a fair trial and dignity. The presiding magistrate failed to comply with statutory requirements regarding the administration of the oath, which rendered the evidence inadmissible. Additionally, the process for mental observation was not properly followed, as the appellant was not given an opportunity to…

Source excerpt

• Intimidation Act
• Procedural Irregularity
• Mental Observation
• Fair Trial Rights
• Administration Of Oath
• Right To Dignity