South Africa Case Law

Tom v S (Appeal) (CA&R17/2025)

Tom v S (Appeal) (CA&R17/2025) [2025] ZAECBHC 13 (12 June 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

CA&R17/2025

Judge

Zono

The magistrate's refusal to grant bail was arbitrary and unconstitutional because he failed to consider and account for the appellant's affidavit and the relevant factors required by law. The judgment lacked reasons and proper analysis, violating the appellant's constitutional rights to freedom and security of the person and the principle of judicial impartiality. The appeal court found that the magistrate's decision was wrong and substituted it with an order admitting the appellant to bail, subject to standard conditions.

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Judicial Reasoning
• Section 65 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 12 Constitution
• Judicial Impartiality
• Failure To Give Reasons

Prithilal v Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd and Another (CCT 290/24)

Prithilal v Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd and Another (CCT 290/24) [2025] ZACC 5; 2025 (8) BCLR 921 (CC) (24 April 2025)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 290/24

Judges

Maya, Madlanga, Dambuza, Goosen, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Opperman, Rogers, Theron, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court's unexplained award of punitive attorney and client costs against the applicant was a constitutional matter. The absence of reasons for the costs order violated the applicant's rights under section 34 of the Constitution and undermined the rule of law, accountability, and transparency. The transcript of oral argument did not provide any justification for the punitive costs order, and the High Court failed to exercise its discretion judicially. The Court found that the timing of the joinder application did not indicate any impropriety by the ap…

Source excerpt

• Punitive Costs
• Joinder
• Attorney And Client Costs
• Section 34 Constitution
• Prescription Act
• Judicial Reasoning

Umegbolu and Another v Dunno Proprietary Limited and Others (17555/2024)

Umegbolu and Another v Dunno Proprietary Limited and Others (17555/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 389 (25 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17555/2024

Judge

R K Parker

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against the refusal of urgent interdict relief, finding no reasonable prospects of success.

• Leave To Appeal Test
• Urgent Interdict
• Anti Dissipatory Interdict
• Right Of Audience
• Judicial Reasoning
• Balance Of Convenience

Nuku-Cha and Others v S (A338/21)

Nuku-Cha and Others v S (A338/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 92 (4 February 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A338/21

Judge

A. J. Bam

High Court appeal against refusal of bail in a Schedule 5 criminal matter succeeded, with bail granted subject to travel and reporting conditions.

• Bail Application
• Schedule 5 Offence
• Burden Of Proof
• Critical Infrastructure Act
• Illegal Immigration
• Judicial Reasoning

Chonco v S (1247/2018)

Chonco v S (1247/2018) [2019] ZASCA 75 (30 May 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1247/2018

Judges

Navsa, Saldulker, Eksteen

The Supreme Court of Appeal reduced a robbery sentence from 18 to 15 years because the magistrate gave no reasons for exceeding the prescribed minimum.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Judicial Reasoning
• Sentencing Discretion
• Minimum-sentencing

Thobani v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others (31159/2009)

Thobani v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd and Others (31159/2009) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1102 (9 December 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31159/2009

Judge

Makgoka

The High Court granted leave to appeal after a prior dismissal of the main application was given without reasons, while refusing to interfere with the postponement ruling.

• Leave To Appeal
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Novation
• Writ Of Execution
• Judicial Reasoning
• Setting Aside Sale In Execution

Ngamntwini v S (CA&R 274/11)

Ngamntwini v S (CA&R 274/11) [2012] ZAECGHC 69 (6 September 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 274/11

Judges

Hartle, Griffiths

The High Court upheld a criminal appeal, setting aside a conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm because the record was incomplete and the magistrate gave inadequate reasons.

• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Judicial Reasoning
• Appeal Procedure
• Criminal-appeal
• Judicial-reasoning
• Assault-with-intent-to-do-grievous-bodily-harm

Ramanyai v S (A 532/2010)

Ramanyai v S (A 532/2010) [2012] ZAGPJHC 68 (19 April 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A 532/2010

Judges

T P Mudau, F H D van Oosten

High Court appeal against a rape conviction and life sentence succeeded because the evidence was not safely accepted and reasonable doubt remained.

• Rape
• Credibility Of Child Witness
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Compelling And Substantial Circumstances
• Onus Of Proof
• Judicial Reasoning

Filani v S (CA&R 227/2011)

Filani v S (CA&R 227/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 75; 2012 (1) SACR 508 (ECG) (8 December 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 227/2011

Judges

J.D. Pickering, E. Revelas

The appeal court found that the appellant was correctly convicted of robbery with aggravating circumstances on count 1, as both the complainant and her daughter knew the appellant well and had ample opportunity to identify him. Their evidence was corroborated by the investigating officer, who found the appellant wearing the described clothing shortly after the incident. The appellant's alibi was not credible and was unsupported by available witnesses. However, the State failed to prove that the weapon and ammunition met the technical statutory definitions under the Firearms Control Act, as no…

Source excerpt

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Firearms Control Act
• Minimum Sentencing
• Identification Evidence
• Forensic Evidence
• Judicial Reasoning

Mcoseli v S (CA&R129/2011)

Mcoseli v S (CA&R129/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 63; 2012 (2) SACR 82 (ECG) (2 November 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R129/2011

Judges

J.D. Pickering, P.T. Mageza

The court set aside convictions for murder and firearm possession after finding the magistrate gave no proper reasons and the State failed to prove the case.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Hostile Witness
• Onus Of Proof
• Judicial Reasoning
• Possession Of Firearm