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 Ncube and Another (Review) (CA&R25/2024) [2025] ZANCHC 40 (5 May 2025)
The High Court held that a special review before sentence was not justified because the magistrate’s doubts arose from post-conviction events, not a procedural irregularity.
S v Mazaleni (E1223/23) [2024] ZAECBHC 18 (22 July 2024)
The High Court set aside criminal proceedings because the accused was represented by an attorney who lacked a valid fidelity fund certificate.
S v Mlambo and Others (CC31/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 340 (8 April 2024)
The High Court dismissed a recusal application in a criminal trial, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and treating the alleged irregularity as immaterial.
Hlubi v S (A121/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 304 (6 June 2023)
The High Court set aside convictions for attempted rape, kidnapping and pointing a firearm after finding the complainant’s cross-examination was never completed, depriving the appellant of a fair trial.
S v Nyali and Another (CA&R 10/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 21 (24 January 2023)
The High Court set aside part-heard regional court proceedings because the accused were represented by a person without right of appearance, and ordered a fresh trial.
S v Thabethe and Others (08/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 351 (14 December 2022)
The court found that the alleged irregularity—the refusal to provide further and better particulars—was fully addressed in the judgment and forms part of the record. The accused have been provided with sufficient information to prepare for trial, including the indictment, statement of facts, and witness statements. The application for special entry is unnecessary because the irregularity, if any, appears on the record and can be raised as a ground of appeal under section 316. Furthermore, the application does not meet the requirements of section 317(1), as it is not bona fide and would consti…
Source excerpt
Dichaba v Regional Court Magistrate, Vryburg and Another (M312/2019) [2022] ZANWHC 35 (14 July 2022)
The court held that the Regional Magistrate's recusal was justified due to the prosecutor's disclosure of the applicant's previous conviction, which created a perception of bias and risked compromising the fairness of the trial. While the applicant was aggrieved by the recusal, the court found no irregularity amounting to a failure of justice, as the magistrate acted to avoid a mistrial. However, the subsequent order by the magistrate that the trial commence de novo before another magistrate was incompetent, as only the High Court has the authority to make such an order. The proceedings under…
Source excerpt
Jenkins v S (A54/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 856 (23 November 2021)
The High Court set aside Basil Victor Jenkins’ conviction and sentence, holding that he should have been referred for psychiatric evaluation under section 78(2).
S v Moses (R40/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 191 (12 August 2021)
The High Court set aside a Magistrate’s Court conviction and sentence after finding that the accused’s section 112(2) guilty-plea statement was defective and the proceedings irregular.
S v Essop and Another (94/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 576 (17 June 2021)
Although section 304A of the Criminal Procedure Act is not applicable to accused who are legally represented, the High Court may intervene in the interests of justice where a gross irregularity has occurred. In this case, accused number two was convicted on both the main count and the alternative counts, resulting in an impermissible duplication of convictions. The irregularity is of such a nature that it would inevitably lead to the setting aside of the convictions and sentences if left unaddressed. To avoid unnecessary delay and piecemeal litigation, the High Court set aside the duplicated…
Source excerpt
Explore more
