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
3 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 [2019] ZAGPJHC 259

S P v S (109/2018)

S P v S (109/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 259 (7 August 2019)

Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
109/2018
Judges
L R Adams, D Fisher

The Regional Magistrate misdirected himself by imposing a fifteen-year non-parole period, which exceeded the statutory maximum permitted under section 276B(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, the accused was not forewarned nor given an opportunity to present argument regarding the non-parole order, violating procedural fairness. The imposition of the non-parole period was both unlawful and constitutionally invalid, infringing the accused's right to freedom under section 12(1)(a) of the Constitution. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying a non-parole order, and remit…

Source excerpt

  • Non Parole Order
  • Criminal Procedure Act Section 276b
  • Review Of Magistrates Court
  • Constitutional Right To Freedom
  • Sentencing Irregularity
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2017] ZAGPPHC 1305

Gonya v The State (A185/16)

Gonya v The State (A185/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1305 (14 November 2017)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
A185/16
Judges
Mngqibisa-Thusi, Phahlane

The court found that the sentencing court misdirected itself by imposing a non-parole period without affording the parties an opportunity to make submissions. The imposition of a non-parole period requires exceptional circumstances and a proper evidential basis, which were not established in this case. The failure to alert the parties and allow them to address the court on the issue constituted a procedural irregularity and prejudice to the appellant. Consequently, the non-parole order was set aside, and the appeal in relation to that order was upheld.

Source excerpt

  • Non Parole Order
  • Sentencing Procedure
  • Rape
  • Exceptional Circumstances
  • Judicial Misdirection
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2016] ZACC 27

Jimmale and Another v S (CCT223/15)

Jimmale and Another v S (CCT223/15) [2016] ZACC 27; 2016 (11) BCLR 1389 (CC); 2016 (2) SACR 691 (CC) (30 August 2016)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT223/15
Judges
Mogoeng, Moseneke, Bosielo, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that the trial court materially misdirected itself by imposing a non-parole order without establishing exceptional circumstances and without inviting the parties to make submissions. The order exceeded the statutory maximum period and was prejudicial to the applicants, infringing their constitutional rights. Precedent requires that non-parole orders be made only in exceptional circumstances, with a proper evidential basis and after hearing the parties. The respondent conceded the error. Accordingly, the non-parole order was set aside, and the applicants will be e…

Source excerpt

  • Non Parole Order
  • Sentencing Discretion
  • Section 276b Criminal Procedure Act
  • Section 12 Constitution
  • Exceptional Circumstances
  • Fair Trial Rights
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2015] ZAGPPHC 213

Mtintso v S (A1038/2013)

Mtintso v S (A1038/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 213 (21 April 2015)

Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
A1038/2013
Judges
Tuchten, SP Mothle

The regional magistrate imposed a non-parole order without providing reasons and without hearing the parties, contrary to the requirements set out in section 276B of the Criminal Procedure Act and the principles established in S v Stander. There was no material before the sentencing court to justify the non-parole order, and the parties were not afforded an opportunity to address the issue. This constituted a misdirection, vitiating the sentencing discretion. The appeal court is therefore entitled to substitute its own assessment and set aside the non-parole order, confirming the remainder of…

Source excerpt

  • Sentencing
  • Non Parole Order
  • Separation Of Powers
  • Misdirection
  • Parole Eligibility
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.