South Africa Case Law

S v Mokhesi and 17 Others (45/2021)

S v Mokhesi and 17 Others (45/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 164 (3 June 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

45/2021

Judge

Loubser

The court found that the extradition of Ms Cholota from the United States of America to South Africa was unlawful because the request for extradition was made by the National Prosecuting Authority and not by the Minister of Justice, as required by law and confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Schultz. The involvement of the Department of International Relations and Co-ordination was deemed merely administrative and did not satisfy the requirement for executive authority. As a result, the court held that it lacked jurisdiction to try Ms Cholota on the offences charged, and she was ordere…

Source excerpt

• Extradition
• Jurisdiction Of Criminal Courts
• Doctrine Of Legality
• International Law Compliance
• Special Plea
• Executive Authority In Extradition

Sidu v S (A03/23)

Sidu v S (A03/23) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 58 (8 November 2023)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A03/23

Judges

Shai, Kgoele

The trial court erred by failing to hear and rule on the special plea of lack of jurisdiction raised by the appellant. The court proceeded with the trial without allowing evidence to be led on the jurisdictional issue, contrary to the mandatory requirements of sections 106(1)(f) and 108 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This procedural irregularity resulted in an unfair trial and vitiated the proceedings. As a result, the conviction and sentence must be set aside, and the matter remitted for a new trial before a different magistrate.

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Criminal Courts
• Procedural Irregularity
• Fair Trial Rights
• Special Plea
• Remittal For De Novo Trial

S v Ndzeku (642/94)

S v Ndzeku (642/94) [1995] ZASCA 149; [1996] 1 All SA 391 (A) (28 November 1995)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

642/94

Judges

E M Grosskopf, Vivier, Marais

The court held that a ministerial direction under section 111 conferred jurisdiction despite non-personal service, and dismissed the appeal against drug convictions.

• Jurisdiction Of Criminal Courts
• Service Of Process
• Drug Possession
• Drug Dealing
• Statutory Interpretation
• Criminal-jurisdiction

S v Mahala and Another (464/92, 465/92)

S v Mahala and Another (464/92, 465/92) [1994] ZASCA 48; [1994] 4 All SA 198 (A) (29 March 1994)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

464/92, 465/92

Judges

Joubert, E.M. Grosskopf, Nestadt, F.H. Grosskopf, Van Coller

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellants were not unlawfully arrested or abducted from the Ciskei. Accused 2 voluntarily accompanied the South African police from the Ciskei to Stutterheim, where he was lawfully arrested. Accused 1 was lawfully arrested by the Ciskeian Police, detained, and then voluntarily agreed to return to South Africa after being informed of the charges and given a choice between return or extradition. There was no violation of the sovereignty of the Ciskei, no infringement of fundamental human rights, and no breach of South African law. The facts were clear…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Criminal Courts
• Unlawful Arrest
• Extradition
• Dolus Directus
• Death Sentence
• Special Plea