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
Mofokeng v S (A40/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 351 (7 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against convictions for corruption and reckless driving, confirming the trial court’s credibility findings and the lawfulness of the trap evidence.
Michael v S (A111/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 239 (6 August 2024)
The High Court upheld an appeal against a DUI conviction, finding the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was under the influence while driving.
S v Ramantshane (R12/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 126 (9 May 2024)
Special review of a guilty plea for driving under the influence. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence for incomplete admissions and procedural irregularities.
S v Mbalekwa - Review Judgment (CA&R 142/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 104 (5 September 2023)
The High Court set aside a magistrate’s conviction and sentence because the accused’s plea facts did not support the charge under the section relied on.
Majeng v S (47/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 41 (28 February 2023)
The court found that the accused's plea and admissions did not unequivocally support a conviction for reckless driving, as required by law. The magistrate failed to distinguish between reckless and negligent driving, which are separate offences, and did not consider the statutory factors or lead evidence regarding licence suspension. The facts admitted by the accused supported a conviction for negligent driving, not reckless driving. The sentence imposed for reckless driving was set aside, and the court imposed a fine of R3500 for negligent driving, deeming the previously paid fine as satisfa…
Source excerpt
S v Kotze; S v Ntulo (371/2022;363/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 15; 2023 (1) SACR 426 (WCC) (25 January 2023)
High Court review of two magistrates’ court plea records set aside Kotze’s conviction and sentence and amended Ntulo’s conviction to negligent driving.
S v Machina (13900/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 135 (18 July 2022)
The High Court found that the magistrates' court record did not adequately reflect that the accused was properly informed of his rights and the consequences of paying the admission of guilt fine, particularly the incurrence of a criminal record. The factual contradictions between the accused's affidavit and the written acknowledgments in the record could not be resolved in special review proceedings. However, given the absence of opposition from the respondents and the practical interests of justice, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence and ordered the refund of the fine, without p…
Source excerpt
Van der Bank v S (A53/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 262; 2022 (1) SACR 307 (WCC) (10 December 2021)
The court held that the two-hour period contemplated in section 65(2)(a) of the National Road Traffic Act commences at the time the driving stops, not at the time of arrest. The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the blood sample was drawn within two hours of the cessation of driving, as the evidence showed the driving stopped at approximately 01h15 and the blood was drawn at 03h29, outside the prescribed period. Consequently, the statutory presumption under section 65(3) could not apply, and the State did not establish the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The convic…
Source excerpt
S v Maqam (R86/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 325 (18 November 2021)
The accused's statement did not admit or provide facts regarding when the blood specimen was drawn or whether it was drawn within two hours of the alleged offence, as required by section 65(3) of the National Road Traffic Act. The absence of these admissions or supporting evidence means the presumption of guilt cannot operate. The proceedings were not in accordance with justice, and the court should have entered a plea of not guilty in terms of section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The conviction, sentence, and related orders must be set aside and the matter remitted for proper procedure.
Source excerpt
S v Nemukula (R 63/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 237; 2022 (1) SACR 549 (FB) (8 October 2021)
On special review, the High Court set aside an incompetent magistrates’ sentence for vagueness and replaced it with a clearer sentence, confirming the licence order.
Explore more
