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 Mtshali (R41/2025) [2025] ZAKZPHC 16; 2025 (1) SACR 665 (KZP) (21 February 2025)
High Court review of a shoplifting conviction: sentence and firearm disqualification were set aside, and the fine was paired with a shorter default prison term.
Singh v Body Corporate of St Tropez (386/2023) [2024] ZASCA 142 (21 October 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a provisional sequestration order after finding the presiding judge should have recused herself for apparent conflict of interest.
S v Gqesha (217810) [2024] ZAECMHC 15 (9 May 2024)
High Court review set aside an assault conviction and six-month sentence after finding the guilty plea was wrongly accepted and the magistrate used degrading language.
Freedom Under Law v Judicial Service Commission and Another (550/2022) [2023] ZASCA 103; [2023] 3 All SA 631 (SCA) (22 June 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the JSC's rejection of the Tribunal's recommendation was unjustified and unsupported by the evidence. The JSC failed to properly consider the Tribunal's findings, relied on unsubstantiated claims of provocation and intoxication as mitigating factors, and did not address the impact of Judge Motata's conduct on public confidence in the judiciary. The JSC's compartmentalized approach and refusal to consider the merits of the Pretorius SC complaint were arbitrary and capricious. The Tribunal's findings, together with those of the criminal and appeal courts,…
Source excerpt
Khuboni v S (AR315/2020) [2021] ZAKZPHC 73; 2022 (1) SACR 470 (KZP) (20 August 2021)
The appeal succeeded because the regional magistrate failed to properly evaluate the evidence, ignored material contradictions in the State's case, and did not consider the appellant's version or that of his witness. The magistrate accepted the State's evidence wholesale, without addressing discrepancies or providing reasons for rejecting the defence. The appellant's evidence and that of his witness were consistent and not undermined by cross-examination. The State did not prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt on any count. The magistrate's conduct, including injudicious remarks…
Source excerpt
S v Njiva and Another (216957) [2016] ZAECMHC 56; 2017 (1) SACR 395 (ECM) (7 November 2016)
The court found that the statements made by the accused to W/O Jungqwana amounted to confessions, not mere admissions, as they unequivocally acknowledged the theft of the goats. These confessions were inadmissible because they were not confirmed and reduced to writing before a magistrate or justice, as required by section 217(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, the introduction of accused no.2's previous conviction prior to conviction constituted a serious irregularity, contravening section 271(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and established case law. Both irregularities violat…
Source excerpt
S v Moholo (19/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 44 (26 February 2015)
The High Court partly upheld an appeal in a stock-theft case, reducing count 1 from three cattle to one cow and substituting a 12-month sentence.
Mthethwa v S (A17/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 502; 2015 (1) SACR 609 (GP) (11 July 2014)
The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant raped the complainant on 14 April 2011. The medical evidence did not indicate fresh penetration or injury on the date alleged, and the complainant's evidence was incoherent and unsupported by objective findings. The trial court erred by focusing on evidence of repeated penetration rather than the specific incident charged. The contradictions in the State's case were material, and the cautionary rules regarding child witnesses were not properly applied. The conduct of the presiding magistrate was…
Source excerpt
Mokoena v S (A277/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 141 (15 May 2014)
The court found that the regional magistrate's conduct during the trial was grossly irregular, manifesting impatience, condescension, and a lack of impartiality. The magistrate's repeated interruptions, argumentative questioning, and failure to allow the defence to properly present its case undermined the fairness of the proceedings and the accused's right to a fair trial. The court held that these transgressions justified setting aside the convictions of both the appellant and his co-accused, invoking its inherent review jurisdiction to do so. The evidence against the appellant and his co-ac…
Source excerpt
Mkhize and Others v S (AR 182/2013) [2014] ZAKZPHC 31 (13 May 2014)
Appeal against robbery convictions succeeded after the court found the identification evidence weak and the magistrate’s conduct incompatible with a fair trial.
Explore more
