South Africa Case Law

Dreyer N.O and Others v Witbooi and Others (2024/124657)

Dreyer N.O and Others v Witbooi and Others (2024/124657) [2024] ZALCC 45 (9 December 2024)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

2024/124657

Judge

Mabasa

The court found that there were material disputes of fact regarding the respondents' employment history and consent to occupy the premises. The respondents provided detailed and plausible accounts of longstanding residence and employment, which were not refuted by compelling evidence from the applicants. Applying the Plascon-Evans rule, the court accepted the respondents' version as true. The applicants failed to discharge the onus to prove unlawful occupation or lack of employment. No request was made for oral evidence or referral to trial. Consequently, the eviction order granted by the mag…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Eviction Proceedings
• Dispute Of Fact
• Long Term Occupier
• Magistrates Court Review

S v Ntanzi and Others (DR15/2024; DR14/2024; DR13/2024; DR16/2024; DR12/2024)

S v Ntanzi and Others (DR15/2024; DR14/2024; DR13/2024; DR16/2024; DR12/2024) [2024] ZAKZPHC 56; 2024 (2) SACR 403 (KZP) (1 July 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

DR15/2024; DR14/2024; DR13/2024; DR16/2024; DR12/2024

Judges

Olsen, Bedderson

The High Court set aside five guilty-plea convictions for unlawful road-based public transport and remitted the matters because the magistrate failed to properly question the accused.

• National Land Transport Act
• Summary Trial Procedure
• Guilty Plea
• Fair Trial Rights
• Magistrates Court Review
• Criminal-procedure

Carospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Bloemfontein & Nashua Aliwal v Kabile, Magistrate for the District of Tweespruit and Another (5893/2023)

Carospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Bloemfontein & Nashua Aliwal v Kabile, Magistrate for the District of Tweespruit and Another (5893/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 80 (22 March 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5893/2023

Judges

Loubser, Mgudlwa

High Court review of magistrate’s orders set aside a default judgment and final interdict for gross irregularity and failure to afford a fair hearing.

• Magistrates Court Review
• Gross Irregularity
• Default Judgment
• Interdict Proceedings
• Magistrates-court-review
• Gross-irregularity

Bagananeng v S (CA & R 33/23)

Bagananeng v S (CA & R 33/23) [2023] ZANCHC 68 (27 October 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA & R 33/23

Judges

Phatshoane, Stanton

The trial court's procedure in allowing the prosecutor to question the accused during section 112(1)(b) plea proceedings constituted impermissible cross-examination and violated the accused's fair trial rights. The accused's responses did not amount to admissions of guilt and should have triggered the entry of a plea of not guilty under section 113. The irregularity was uncovered early in the proceedings, and remittal to the same magistrate would be undesirable due to potential prejudice. The proceedings were not in accordance with justice and must be set aside, with the matter remitted for t…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Fair Trial Rights
• Cross Examination At Plea Stage
• Remittal Under Section 312
• Magistrates Court Review

D.T v Magistrate Bester and Others (3376/2022)

D.T v Magistrate Bester and Others (3376/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 334 (23 August 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3376/2022

Judges

Daniso, Cronje

The High Court reviewed a magistrate’s bare acquittal on a private perjury prosecution and ordered a proper section 310(1) response with reasons.

• Private Prosecution
• Magistrates Court Review
• Failure To Provide Reasons
• Section 310 Criminal Procedure Act
• Rule 43 Interim Maintenance
• Private-prosecution

MJ Vermeulen Inc. v Engelbrecht and Another (21562/2021)

MJ Vermeulen Inc. v Engelbrecht and Another (21562/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 250 (30 November 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

21562/2021

Judges

Baartman, Slingers

High Court review of a magistrate’s trial judgment was upheld after gross irregularities, refusal of expert evidence, and denial of oral argument.

• Magistrates Court Review
• Gross Irregularity
• Judicial Bias
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Right To Address Court
• Magistrates-court-review

Ramolotja v Motaung and Others (89/22)

Ramolotja v Motaung and Others (89/22) [2022] ZALMPPHC 62 (25 November 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

89/22

Judges

Kganyago, Naude-Odendaal

The magistrate committed a gross irregularity by preparing and commencing delivery of a written judgment before affording the parties an opportunity to address the court on the merits. This conduct violated the audi alteram partem rule and section 34 of the Constitution, as the parties' right to a fair hearing was compromised. The subsequent opportunity to address the court, given only after the magistrate had begun delivering judgment, was insufficient to cure the irregularity, as the magistrate had already formed a view on the matter. The irregularity tainted the entire proceedings, necessi…

Source excerpt

• Audi Alteram Partem
• Fair Hearing
• Magistrates Court Review
• Section 34 Constitution

Richard Keay Pollock N.O and Others v Victor and Others (7352021)

Richard Keay Pollock N.O and Others v Victor and Others (7352021) [2022] ZAFSHC 155 (17 June 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

7352021

Judges

Loubser, De Kock

The court found that the proceedings before the Seventh Respondent on 12 February 2021 were grossly irregular. There was a clear understanding that only the admissibility of the fourth point in limine would be decided, but the Magistrate proceeded to decide the merits and jurisdiction without hearing the applicants. This denied the applicants a fair hearing, violating section 34 of the Constitution and constituting a gross irregularity under section 22(1)(c) of the Superior Courts Act. The irregularity prejudiced the applicants and justified review and setting aside of the order. The counter-…

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Court Review
• Gross Irregularity
• Fair Hearing
• Jurisdiction
• Contempt Of Court

S v Namane (R49/2021)

S v Namane (R49/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 262 (4 November 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R49/2021

Judges

Mhlambi, Mbhele

The High Court reviewed a magistrate’s irregular order on vehicle release, confirmed the reduced admission of guilt fine, and substituted a corrected release order.

• Admission Of Guilt Fine
• Impoundment Of Vehicle
• Magistrates Court Review
• Public Transport Regulation
• Criminal-review
• Admission-of-guilt-fine

Bisschoff v Magistrate Jansen van Rensburg and Others (1581/2021)

Bisschoff v Magistrate Jansen van Rensburg and Others (1581/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 254 (28 October 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1581/2021

Judges

De Kock, Loubser

The High Court dismissed a review of interlocutory magistrates’ court orders, holding that no exceptional circumstances justified review in medias res.

• Magistrates Court Review
• Interlocutory Orders
• In Medias Res Review
• Costs Award
• Magistrates-court-review
• In-medias-res-review