South Africa Case Law

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018)

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018) [2025] ZAWCHC 341 (11 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC08/2018

Judge

Lekhuleni

The Court found that Delano Saptoe was a co-accused of accused 3 and 14 at the time he made the warning statement in the lower court. The statement was made after the alleged offence and did not advance a common purpose; it was a narrative statement recounting past events. The statement did not qualify as an executive statement under the common law exception and thus could not be admitted against accused 3 and 14. Furthermore, the statement was taken in violation of Saptoe's constitutional right to legal representation, as he requested a lawyer before giving the statement but was denied one.…

Source excerpt

• Hearsay Evidence
• Admissibility Of Warning Statement
• Co Accused Statements
• Constitutional Right To Legal Representation
• Executive Vs Narrative Statement
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act

Mooki and Others v S (A41/2023)

Mooki and Others v S (A41/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 110 (4 March 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A41/2023

Judges

JP Daffue, S Chesiwe

The court held that the admission of the complainant's evidence, which was not fully tested by cross-examination due to her suicide, constituted a misdirection and violated the appellants' constitutional right to a fair trial. The right to cross-examine is fundamental and not subject to discretion; where it cannot be exercised, the evidence must be excluded. Without the complainant's evidence, the State's case was insufficient, and the applications for discharge under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act should have been granted. The convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appe…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Cross Examination
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Rape
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Constitutional Rights

Nehawu obo Ntimane v Ntimbana NO and Others (JR1405/2020)

Nehawu obo Ntimane v Ntimbana NO and Others (JR1405/2020) [2024] ZALCJHB 421 (5 November 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1405/2020

Judge

Harvey

Labour Court reviewed a CCMA award after the commissioner relied on unruled-on hearsay and drew unsupported findings on a customs inspector’s alleged fraud.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Hearsay Evidence
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Gross Irregularity
• Unfair-dismissal

Mkiwane v Motapanyane and Others (516/2018)

Mkiwane v Motapanyane and Others (516/2018) [2024] ZAFSHC 301 (18 September 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

516/2018

Judge

Cronje AJ

High Court ruling admitting hearsay statements and docket material from deceased police officers in a civil claim for unlawful arrest and detention.

• Admissibility Of Hearsay
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Civil Proceedings Evidence Act
• Unlawful Arrest
• Damages For Detention
• Admissibility-of-hearsay

S v Ratel (K/S 17A/2023)

S v Ratel (K/S 17A/2023) [2024] ZANCHC 75 (21 June 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

K/S 17A/2023

Judge

Mamosebo

The court found that the accused's alibi was vague, unsubstantiated, and disclosed late, and was contradicted by credible witness testimony and forensic evidence. The extra-curial statements made by Daisy Plaatjies and Gladys Ratel to the investigating officer were admitted as hearsay under s 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as they were made voluntarily, in a language understood by the declarants, and were pivotal to the State's case. The cumulative effect of the evidence, including the accused's conduct, utterances, and the frequency of calls between his mother and sister, esta…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Assault Gbh
• Hearsay Evidence
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Alibi Defence
• Hostile Witnesses

S v Dielele (CC18/2021)

S v Dielele (CC18/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 155 (6 September 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CC18/2021

Judge

S Mfenyana

High Court held that a deceased witness’s statement and related oral hearsay were admissible in the interests of justice under section 3(1)(c).

• Hearsay Evidence
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Admissibility Of Statements
• Interests Of Justice
• Hearsay-evidence
• Criminal-evidence

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018)

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC 221 (31 July 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC08/2018

Judge

Lekhuleni

The court held that the correct approach to admitting hearsay statements by deceased persons, as set out in S v Kapa, is to evaluate the statement together with all other evidence at the end of the trial, rather than in a separate preliminary hearing. The jurisdictional requirements of section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act must be satisfied during the holistic assessment of all evidence. The court found that this approach does not prejudice the accused, as the reliability and probative value of the statement will be determined in the context of the entire case. The objection to…

Source excerpt

• Hearsay Evidence
• Admissibility Of Deceased Statements
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial

Ithala Development Finance Corporation Ltd v Zulu and Others (D615/2020)

Ithala Development Finance Corporation Ltd v Zulu and Others (D615/2020) [2023] ZALCD 13 (24 July 2023)

Court

Labour Court Durban

Case number

D615/2020

Judge

GN Moshoana

The Labour Court reviewed and set aside a CCMA award that had rejected hearsay evidence without applying section 3 of the Evidence Act, and upheld the dismissal.

• Unfair Dismissal
• Admissibility Of Hearsay Evidence
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Arbitration Irregularity
• Substantive Fairness
• Commissioner Review

Kapa v S (CCT 292/21)

Kapa v S (CCT 292/21) [2023] ZACC 1; 2023 (4) BCLR 370 (CC); 2023 (1) SACR 583 (CC) (24 January 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 292/21

Judges

Baqwa AJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo J, Mbatha AJ, Mhlantla J, Rogers J, Tshiqi J

The Constitutional Court held that the admission of Ms Dasi's hearsay statement was justified under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as the interests of justice required its admission. The statement was contemporaneous, provided a first-hand account of the assault, and was corroborated by forensic, DNA, and circumstantial evidence. Although the applicant was prejudiced by the inability to cross-examine Ms Dasi, the cumulative weight of the evidence established a strong prima facie case of his involvement in the murder. The Court found that the High Court correctly admitte…

Source excerpt

• Admission Of Hearsay Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Section 35 Constitution
• Doctrine Of Common Purpose
• Minimum Sentence

Classen & Another v The State (803/21)

Classen & Another v The State (803/21) [2022] ZASCA 130 (3 October 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

803/21

Judges

Makgoka, Mabindla-Boqwana, Musi, Makaula, Goosen

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the high court erred in attaching excessive weight to Mrs Shortridge's recanted statement without properly considering the circumstances under which it was made, including undue pressure from the deceased's family and community. The court held that her testimony explaining the pressure and her lack of independent identification of the assailants should not have been rejected. The corroborative evidence relied upon by the high court, including Mr Wesley's statements and the testimony of Mrs Shortridge's husband, was found to be unreliable and affected by…

Source excerpt

• Hearsay Evidence
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act
• Hostile Witness
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Burden Of Proof