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 Ugala (R28/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 37 (25 April 2019)
On special review, the High Court confirmed the magistrate’s jurisdiction, upheld the conviction, and left the seven-year sentence and fine intact.
S v White (06/2017, C236/17) [2017] ZANWHC 101 (14 December 2017)
The accused was charged and convicted under section 34(6) of the Immigration Act, which does not create an offence. The correct section for prosecution is section 49(1)(a), which was not invoked. The District Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate deportation matters. The defective charge sheet resulted in a conviction for a non-existent offence, prejudicing the accused. In accordance with the principles set out in S v Ganqa and the Criminal Procedure Act, the proceedings were not in accordance with justice and the conviction must be set aside.
Source excerpt
S v Maitland (A59/14) [2016] ZAGPJHC 105 (6 May 2016)
The High Court held that the trial magistrate erred in finding that the issuing magistrate lacked authority and jurisdiction to grant the search and seizure warrants. This error constituted a serious irregularity of law, not fact, and was appealable under s 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The exclusion of evidence on this basis was unjust and unfair to the State, and undermined the fairness of the trial. The court found that the respondent's fair trial rights would not be compromised by reopening the matter, but that the trial should commence de novo before a different magistrate to ensure…
Source excerpt
S v Monotshi (A720/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 819 (9 October 2014)
The High Court held that the district magistrate had no jurisdiction to try the matter after transferring it to the Regional Court under section 115A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The subsequent decision by another magistrate to return the matter to the district court was unauthorized and created confusion. Furthermore, the trial magistrate should have recused herself after presiding over the bail application and learning of the accused's previous convictions, as this could reasonably be perceived as bias. The absence of the trial record prevented the court from making findings on whether th…
Source excerpt
Ndlovu v S (CA & R 24/2010) [2010] ZANCHC 18 (28 May 2010)
The High Court held that the Regional Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to sentence the appellant for Schedule 2 rape offences, set aside the sentences, and remitted the matter.
S v Koloza and Another (809/08) [2009] ZAFSHC 1 (8 January 2009)
The High Court set aside accused 3’s transfer for sentencing because his alleged previous convictions were not proven before transfer.
S v Ncgwabe (CA&R 267/03) [2005] ZANCHC 58 (30 September 2005)
The court held that the minimum sentencing provisions of Act 105 of 1997 were not applicable because the value of the dagga, which is an element of the scheduled offence, was only proven after conviction. All elements must be proven before conviction for the Act to apply. Furthermore, the magistrate's court had jurisdiction to impose a sentence of up to 25 years under section 17(e) of Act 140 of 1992, and thus the referral to the regional court for sentencing was improper. The regional court therefore lacked jurisdiction to sentence the appellant. Regarding the plea, the court found that, alt…
Source excerpt
Explore more
