South Africa Case Law

Van der Walt and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another - On Review (1176/2023)

Van der Walt and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another - On Review (1176/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 117 (12 October 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1176/2023

Judges

Rugunanan, Beshe

The applicants failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the charges or the grounds for their objections, rendering the review impossible. Their reliance on the Superior Courts Act is misplaced, as they did not allege any of the statutory grounds for review such as bias or corruption. The PAJA does not apply to judicial functions of magistrates or decisions to institute or continue prosecution. The applicants misconstrued the definition of administrative action and failed to establish any basis for impugning the competence of the prosecuting authority. The jurisdictional objection was not…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Magistrates Decision
• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Jurisdiction Of Trial Court
• Administrative Action Exclusion
• Delay In Review
• Section 85 Objection

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mokatse (A24/2021 SH41/2013)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mokatse (A24/2021 SH41/2013) [2021] ZALMPPHC 74 (22 October 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

A24/2021 SH41/2013

Judges

NF Kgomo, Ledwaba

The High Court held that the Regional Court remained the proper convicting court to conduct a POCA confiscation enquiry after an acquittal was overturned on appeal.

• Confiscation Order
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Functus Officio
• Jurisdiction Of Trial Court
• Criminal Appeal Procedure
• Confiscation-order

S v Tomose (24/493/2004)

S v Tomose (24/493/2004) [2008] ZAWCHC 49 (19 August 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

24/493/2004

The court held that once an accused has pleaded before a properly constituted court, only that court is competent to try the matter. The second proceedings before Magistrate Magele were a nullity because the accused had already pleaded and the trial had commenced before Magistrate Ndlakuhlolo. Subjecting the accused to two trials for the same offence is unconstitutional and a grave irregularity. The Supreme Court has the power to intervene in such circumstances to prevent injustice and uphold the rule of law. Accordingly, the second proceedings were set aside and the earlier trial was ordered…

Source excerpt

• Double Jeopardy
• Jurisdiction Of Trial Court
• Irregular Proceedings