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
Du Plessis v A to Z Boerdery CC and Others (A2023/116427) [2025] ZAGPJHC 362 (4 April 2025)
The High Court upheld an appeal in a spoliation matter, holding the Regional Court lacked jurisdiction because the vehicles’ value exceeded its monetary limit.
S v Mokone (R23/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 247 (21 August 2024)
The High Court confirmed a district magistrate’s conviction and held that a regional court referred the matter for sentencing may consider fresh mitigation and aggravation evidence.
Green Outdoor Gym (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ogana and Another (2022/4340) [2023] ZAGPJHC 691 (13 June 2023)
The High Court reviewed and set aside a magistrate’s transfer order, holding that a court without jurisdiction could not transfer the matter.
Tafelkop (PTY) Ltd and Another v Dikgalaopeng Community (Di Thomo TSA Bokone and Others (LCC 51/2022) [2022] ZALCC 16 (10 June 2022)
The Land Claims Court reviewed and set aside a magistrates’ court interdict over land-restoration-related development, finding lack of jurisdiction and defective ex parte procedure.
HL Matlala Properties CC t.a Goragang Hire v Kulasisebenze Trading & Projects (Pty) Ltd (HCA01/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 69 (7 October 2021)
The High Court held that Groblersdal Regional Court had jurisdiction because the contract, the work, and the debt acknowledgement were closely connected to Dennilton.
S v Seroka (REV 93/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 64; 2021 (2) SACR 622 (LP) (30 September 2021)
The District Court Magistrate misconstrued the precedent in Rameez Patel and Section 60(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The correct interpretation is that, while jurisdiction over bail applications generally vests in the receiving court after the accused's first appearance, the receiving court retains the power to refer the matter back to the transferring court for a bail application. This practice is supported by case law and serves the interests of justice, particularly where the receiving court is unable to hear the bail application. The District Court Magistrate's refusal to hear the…
Source excerpt
Seloana and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (4019/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 176 (24 August 2021)
The court found that the transfer of the applicants' case from the district court to the high court was lawfully effected in terms of section 75 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The magistrate was not required to provide reasons or hold an enquiry before transferring the case, as the statutory framework does not impose such obligations. The applicants' reliance on authorities and constitutional rights was misconstrued, and their contention that defending the case in the high court would infringe their right to legal representation was meritless, given the availability of Legal Aid and Pro Bono…
Source excerpt
S v Mabena and Others (REV06/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 14 (26 April 2021)
The regional court in Morebeng did not have jurisdiction to hear the bail application for offences allegedly committed in both Molemole and Polokwane magisterial districts because the prosecution failed to obtain the required written authority from the Director of Public Prosecutions. Section 50(6)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act makes it mandatory for such authority to be obtained for Schedule 6 offences to be heard in a regional court. The absence of written authorization constitutes a gross irregularity, rendering the bail proceedings a nullity. The proceedings were not in accordance with…
Source excerpt
Ndlovu v S (CCT174/16) [2017] ZACC 19; 2017 (10) BCLR 1286 (CC); 2017 (2) SACR 305 (CC) (15 June 2017)
The Constitutional Court held that the regional court lacked jurisdiction to impose life imprisonment because the accused was charged and convicted under section 51(2), not section 51(1).
Naidoo v Regional Magistrate for Durban Magistrates' Court, Mr M Maharaj and Another (AR769/14) [2017] ZAKZPHC 19; 2017 (2) SACR 244 (KZP) (23 May 2017)
The High Court held that the regional magistrate lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for a permanent stay of prosecution, as such jurisdiction is not conferred by s 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act or any other statute. Magistrates' courts are limited to powers granted by statute and do not possess inherent jurisdiction to grant declaratory or review relief outside the scope of delay-related matters. The applicant's grounds for review did not relate to undue delay or procedural irregularity during the trial, but rather to alleged irregularities in the investigation, which are n…
Source excerpt
Explore more
