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
Mathunyane and Another v Mokoena (5722/2024) [2024] ZAMPMHC 61 (18 November 2024)
The court set aside a private prosecution summons for lack of locus standi, held extra charges unlawful, and barred reinstitution.
Polovin v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (1230/2022) [2024] ZASCA 140; [2024] 4 All SA 675 (SCA); 2025 (1) SACR 1 (SCA) (17 October 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the nolle prosequi certificate issued by the DPP is not administrative action and is not reviewable under PAJA; only the underlying decision not to prosecute is subject to review on legality and rationality grounds. The jurisdictional requirements for private prosecution under s 7(1)(a) of the CPA were met, as the second respondent suffered injury to her personality rights, dignity, and privacy. The DPP was entitled to re-issue the certificate and include additional charges, as the right to prosecute had not prescribed and the charges arose from the same…
Source excerpt
President of the Republic of South Africa v Zuma and Others (0027676/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 783; [2023] 3 All SA 853 (GJ); 2024 (1) SACR 32 (GJ) (5 July 2023)
The Court found that the nolle prosequi certificates issued by the DPP did not relate to any charge against Mr Ramaphosa, nor did they specify him as a suspect or the relevant offences. The certificates were vague and failed to meet statutory requirements. The summons issued against Mr Ramaphosa were therefore unlawful, invalid, and unconstitutional. Mr Zuma failed to comply with the requirement to pay security before issuing the summons. The private prosecution was instituted for an ulterior motive, namely to trigger the ANC's step aside rule and prevent Mr Ramaphosa from contesting election…
Source excerpt
Maughan v Zuma and Others (12770/22P;13062/22P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 59; [2023] 3 All SA 484 (KZP); 2023 (5) SA 467 (KZP); 2023 (2) SACR 435 (KZP) (7 June 2023)
The court found that the respondent, Mr Zuma, failed to produce a valid nolle prosequi certificate in respect of Ms Maughan at the time the summons was issued, rendering the private prosecution unlawful. Furthermore, Mr Zuma did not demonstrate a substantial and peculiar interest arising from any injury suffered as required by section 7(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the alleged disclosures did not violate his rights or cause actionable harm. The court held that the private prosecutions were instituted for ulterior purposes, namely to intimidate, harass, and silence the applicants in th…
Source excerpt
Porrit and Another v National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 136; B825/2023 (6 March 2023)
Urgent mandamus to compel a nolle prosequi certificate was dismissed because the docket was missing, making statutory compliance impossible.
President of the Republic of South Africa v Zuma and Others (062027/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 11; 2023 (1) SACR 610 (GJ) (16 January 2023)
The court held that the applicant had established the requirements for an interim interdict: urgency, a prima facie right to personal freedom, absence of alternative effective relief, and a balance of convenience in his favour. The court found that a civil court has jurisdiction to intervene in private prosecutions where there is an abuse of process or violation of rights, and that the nolle prosequi certificates relied upon by the respondent were subject to serious legal challenge regarding their validity and applicability to the applicant. Compelling the applicant to appear before a crimina…
Source excerpt
Nundalal v Director of Public Prosecutions KZN and Others (AR723/2014) [2015] ZAKZPHC 25 (8 May 2015)
The court held that the certificate of nolle prosequi issued by the DPP could not be reviewed and set aside due to procedural defects in the application, including failure to obtain reasons and the record from the DPP and non-compliance with the 180-day time limit under PAJA. The private prosecutor failed to satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites for a valid private prosecution by not lodging the certificate and proof of payment of security for costs with the clerk prior to issuing the summons. Furthermore, the private prosecutor did not demonstrate a substantial and peculiar interest or pe…
Source excerpt
Singh v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (5072/05) [2006] ZAKZHC 20 (5 May 2006)
The court held that the applicant was not entitled to a nolle prosequi certificate merely because the National Director of Public Prosecutions declined to prosecute. Section 7(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that a private prosecutor must prove a substantial and peculiar interest arising from injury individually suffered as a consequence of the alleged offence. The applicant's founding affidavit did not address these requirements with sufficient particularity, nor did it provide a factual basis for the alleged offences or the applicant's interest. The court found that the applica…
Source excerpt
Explore more
