Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal Law [2013] ZAWCHC 184

Goldberg v Director of Public Prosecutions: Western Cape (A446/12)

Goldberg v Director of Public Prosecutions: Western Cape (A446/12) [2013] ZAWCHC 184; 2014 (2) SACR 57 (WCC) (17 December 2013)

Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
A446/12
Judges
Goliath, Le Grange, Rogers

The court held that the appellant was not the owner of the ivory at the time of the alleged offences, nor had he acquired a vested right to ownership. The ivory belonged to his mother, who was the proprietor of the shop. The statutory offences under s 42(1)(b) and s 46(c) require possession and acquisition for one's own benefit, which was not established in the appellant's case. The evidence showed that the appellant acted as an employee and manager, not as the possessor or seller for his own benefit. The state failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant acquired or possessed t…

Source excerpt

  • Nature And Environmental Conservation Ordinance
  • Search And Seizure
  • Constitutional Right To Privacy
  • Mens Rea
  • Accomplice Liability
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2008] ZANCHC 31

S v Zurich (10/03)

S v Zurich (10/03) [2008] ZANCHC 31 (23 May 2008)

Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Case number
10/03
Judges
Williams, Mokgohloa

The court found that the appellant was not induced or coaxed by the police or Oberholzer to commit the offence. Despite being warned about Oberholzer's status as a covert agent, the appellant voluntarily provided information about the elephant tusks and facilitated the meeting between Oberholzer and Esterhuizen, leading to the sale. There was no evidence that the appellant imported or transported the tusks, and the respondent failed to prove this element for count 1. However, the appellant's actions in arranging the transaction made him an accomplice to the sale under section 46, and his conv…

Source excerpt

  • Nature And Environmental Conservation Ordinance
  • Admissibility Of Evidence
  • Abuse Of Judicial Process
  • Accomplice Liability
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.