South Africa Case Law

S v Pholoholo (Review) (HC 01/2025)

S v Pholoholo (Review) (HC 01/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 31 (14 February 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC 01/2025

Judges

A H Petersen, A Reddy

The High Court found that the Acting Regional Magistrate failed to conduct the necessary factual enquiry required by sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Procedure Act before referring the accused for psychiatric observation and making subsequent orders. The referral was based solely on the legal representative's statement without objective evidence or proper enquiry. The panel of psychiatrists was improperly constituted, as the accused was charged with murder and should have been examined by three psychiatrists, not two. The Acting Regional Magistrate misapplied section 78(6)(b)(ii), erroneous…

Source excerpt

• Mental Health Care Act
• Criminal Capacity
• Fitness To Stand Trial
• Gross Irregularity
• Psychiatric Observation

Snyders (Mputsoe) v Elizabeth Conradie School (913/2023)

Snyders (Mputsoe) v Elizabeth Conradie School (913/2023) [2025] ZANCHC 3 (23 January 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

913/2023

Judge

Lever

The High Court refused an indefinite postponement of a leave-to-appeal hearing, dismissed the leave to appeal, and ordered costs against the applicant.

• Eviction
• Leave To Appeal
• Postponement
• Mental Health Care Act
• Condonation
• Costs Award

Afriforum NPC and Another v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Social Department, Mpumalanga and Others (3935/2020)

Afriforum NPC and Another v Member of the Executive Council, Department of Social Department, Mpumalanga and Others (3935/2020) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 4 (24 January 2024)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3935/2020

Judge

N Mazibuko

High Court structural interdict in a subsidy dispute for disabled residents at Sunfield, with CPI-linked future increases, re-screening orders, and no costs.

• Social Security Rights
• Mandamus
• Structural Interdict
• Dignity Of Disabled Persons
• Budgeting For Social Welfare
• Mental Health Care Act

S v Jansen (186/2023)

S v Jansen (186/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 14 (19 January 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

186/2023

Judges

Ralarala, Lekhuleni

High Court special review on a guilty plea for breaching a protection order led to remittal for proper handling of the accused’s mental illness under the CPA.

• Domestic Violence Act
• Mental Health Care Act
• Postponement Of Sentence
• Conviction And Acquittal
• Criminal-law
• Domestic-violence

S v Eshane (HC02/2022)

S v Eshane (HC02/2022) [2022] ZANWHC 30 (29 June 2022)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC 02/2022

Judges

Petersen, Hendricks

High Court review of a magistrates’ court psychiatric detention order was set aside for non-compliance with section 77 and insufficient proof of the act in question.

• Mental Health Care Act
• Fitness To Stand Trial
• Automatic Review
• Psychiatric Detention
• Automatic-review
• Fitness-to-stand-trial

Reyneke: In re: S v Mokoena (2232/2022), Ex parte

Reyneke: In re: S v Mokoena (2232/2022), Ex parte [2022] ZAFSHC 110 (24 May 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2232/2022

Judge

Opperman, J

The court found that the accused's continued detention after discharge from hospital was lawful under the Criminal Procedure Act, as bail had been refused and the accused was held pending trial for serious offences. Discharge from hospital under the Mental Health Care Act does not automatically entitle an accused to release from custody; judicial oversight and proper procedure must be followed. The administrative errors in failing to issue a warrant for continued incarceration did not render the detention unlawful, as the substantive basis for detention remained valid. The application for lea…

Source excerpt

• Habeas Corpus
• Interdictum De Libero Homine Exhibendo
• Mental Health Care Act
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Unlawful Detention
• Leave To Appeal

J.D v S (69/2020)

J.D v S (69/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 23; 2020 (2) SACR 555 (WCC) (25 March 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

69/2020

Judge

Baartman

The High Court held that the referral of an unfit accused as a State Patient was in accordance with justice, but the matter had been wrongly sent for automatic review.

• Fitness To Stand Trial
• Mental Health Care Act
• Automatic Review
• State Patient Referral
• Fitness-to-stand-trial
• Mental-health-care-act

S v Monamotsane (R264/2018)

S v Monamotsane (R264/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 61 (30 May 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R264/2018

Judges

Molitsoane, Chesiwe

The Magistrate failed to make the required findings under section 77(6)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, specifically regarding the accused's capacity to understand proceedings and whether he committed the act in question. The order for detention at Grootvlei Correctional Facility was made without establishing that the accused posed a serious danger to himself or the public, as required by law. These failures constituted gross irregularities, rendering the proceedings not in accordance with justice. The High Court, exercising its review powers, set aside the Magistrate's order and directed t…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act
• Mental Health Care Act
• Automatic Review
• Irregularity In Proceedings
• Detention Of State Patient

Singh (2014/0043), Ex parte

Singh (2014/0043), Ex parte [2017] ZAGPJHC 42 (17 February 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2014/0043

Judge

Fisher

The court postponed an ex parte application to reclassify a State patient, citing outdated reports, procedural irregularities, and inconsistencies about the underlying charge.

• Mental Health Care Act
• State Patient Discharge
• Curator Ad Litem Report
• Procedural Irregularity
• Mental-health-care-act
• State-patient-reclassification

Botha NO v The Governing Body of the Eljada Institute & Another (20530/2014)

Botha NO v The Governing Body of the Eljada Institute & Another (20530/2014) [2016] ZASCA 36 (24 March 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20530/2014

Judges

Cachalia, Majiedt, Willis, Fourie, Baartman

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Institute's decision to terminate care services for Ms Potgieter was not disciplinary in nature but rather based on a change in her needs and the Institute's inability to safely accommodate her. The court held that the audi alteram partem principle was extensively applied through years of consultation with her parents and their attorney, and that Ms Potgieter's severe mental incapacity precluded the need for a formal disciplinary hearing. The process followed by the Institute was thorough, fair, and in accordance with both contractual and policy requ…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Mental Health Care Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Termination Of Services
• Natural Justice