South Africa Case Law

Temmies and Another v S (Appeal) (A35/2025)

Temmies and Another v S (Appeal) (A35/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 184 (29 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A35/2025

Judges

Allie, Moosa

The court held that where there is a discrepancy between the sentence announced in open court and that recorded on the J15 form, the sentence announced in open court prevails for all purposes under the Criminal Procedure Act. The principle of open justice and the accused's right to a fair trial require that sentencing be transparent and public. The trial magistrate materially misdirected herself by failing to order concurrent sentences, resulting in shockingly disproportionate effective imprisonment, and by making errors in assessing prior convictions and personal circumstances. The court fou…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Matters Amendment Act
• Minimum Sentencing
• Sentencing Irregularity
• Open Justice
• Concurrent Sentences
• Theft Of Essential Infrastructure

E.Sat (Pty) Limited and Others v Lucken N.O and Others (D7737/2022)

E.Sat (Pty) Limited and Others v Lucken N.O and Others (D7737/2022) [2024] ZAKZDHC 18; 2024 (2) SACR 377 (KZD) (3 May 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D7737/2022

Judge

Balton

The court found that the July 2023 ruling was an interlocutory order, issued to address the urgent need to protect witnesses following a shooting incident and to ensure the continuation of the criminal trial. The court held that it has the inherent power to vary or rescind its own interlocutory orders in the interests of justice. The restrictions imposed by the July ruling were limited to a specific thread of evidence and did not amount to a blanket ban on media access. The court determined that the right to freedom of expression and the open justice principle were not infringed, as accredite…

Source excerpt

• Open Justice
• Media Access To Courts
• Freedom Of Expression
• Witness Protection
• Interlocutory Orders
• Audi Alteram Partem

Makwakwa and Others v Minister of State Security (1316/2022)

Makwakwa and Others v Minister of State Security (1316/2022) [2024] ZASCA 41 (5 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1316/2022

Judges

Makgoka, Weiner, Goosen, Chetty, Masipa

Appeal upheld after the court found material non-disclosure and misstatements in ex parte proceedings seeking to stop publication of an intelligence report.

• Ex Parte Applications
• Good Faith
• Interim Interdict
• National Security
• Open Justice
• Ex-parte-applications

Savoi and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (CCT 146/22)

Savoi and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (CCT 146/22) [2023] ZACC 38; 2024 (1) SACR 343 (CC); 2024 (5) BCLR 653 (CC) (28 November 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 146/22

Judges

Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Makgoka, Mathopo, Potterill, Rogers, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that the appropriate procedure for considering documents allegedly protected by legal professional privilege in the context of a permanent stay application is an in camera review. This strikes a balance between the constitutional principles of open justice and legal professional privilege. The Court found that requiring proof of privilege at the interlocutory stage prejudges a central issue and is not necessary for determining the procedure. The in camera process does not entail permanent secrecy, as records can be made public if privilege is not established. The…

Source excerpt

• Legal Professional Privilege
• Open Justice
• In Camera Review
• Superior Courts Act Section 32
• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution

SMI Pty Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services - Appeal (CA25/2023)

SMI Pty Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services - Appeal (CA25/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 129 (21 November 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA25/2023

Judges

J W Eksteen, M Makaula, H Zilwa

Appeal dismissed where the court found no practical effect in sealing a tax-related application file already largely in the public domain.

• Taxpayer Confidentiality
• Tax Administration Act
• Open Justice
• Secrecy Application
• Superior Courts Act
• Taxpayer-confidentiality

South African National Editors Forum v Abbu and Others (Leave to Appeal) (AR131/2021)

South African National Editors Forum v Abbu and Others (Leave to Appeal) (AR131/2021) [2023] ZAKZPHC 163 (6 October 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR131/2021

Judges

Sibiya, Khan

The High Court upheld SANEF’s appeal, set aside the regional court order, and clarified the correct procedure for media access in Magistrates’ Courts.

• Open Justice
• Media Access To Courts
• Freedom Of Expression
• Magistrates Commission Guidelines
• Burden Of Proof In Media Applications
• Open-justice

S v Sibiya and Others

S v Sibiya and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 378; CC 67/2020 (18 May 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC 67/2020

Judge

T A Maumela

The court found that witness number one did not provide sufficient evidence to justify restricting both visual and audio broadcast of her testimony. While her concerns about safety and public scrutiny were acknowledged, she had already participated in public forums and social media, exposing her identity and voice. Previous witnesses were protected from visual broadcast but not audio, and the court saw no reason to treat witness number one differently. The court emphasized the principle of open justice and the public's right to access information, finding that the interests of justice and fai…

Source excerpt

• Open Justice
• Media Access To Courts
• Witness Protection
• Fair Trial Rights
• Audio Visual Broadcast
• Constitutional Balancing

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and Another v African Christian Democratic Party (869/2021)

South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and Another v African Christian Democratic Party (869/2021) [2022] ZASCA 158 (21 November 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

869/2021

Judges

Petse, Makgoka, Plasket, Windell, Mali

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred in granting a supervisory order without affording the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority and the Minister of Health a hearing, despite their explicit opposition and request for oral argument. The order was not sought by any party, was not an issue in the pleadings, and was granted in the absence of any evidence to justify its necessity. The court emphasized that judicial power is limited by law and the Constitution, and that parties must be heard before orders affecting them are made. The grant of the supervisory order…

Source excerpt

• Supervisory Order
• Right To Be Heard
• Open Justice
• Separation Of Powers
• Remedial Powers
• Fair Hearing

Minister of State Security v Makwakwa and Others (64148/2021)

Minister of State Security v Makwakwa and Others (64148/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 769 (5 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64148/2021

Judge

D S Molefe

The High Court confirmed an interdict preventing publication of a classified intelligence report and ordered its return, finding the respondents lacked lawful access.

• Access To Information
• Protection Of Information Act
• Interdict
• Classification Of Documents
• Open Justice
• National Security

Structured Mezzanine Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1824/2021)

Structured Mezzanine Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (1824/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 128; 85 SATC 436 (12 April 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1824/2021

Judge

M.J. Lowe

The court held that the applicants failed to establish any statutory basis for High Court hearings to be held in camera in matters enforcing section 46 of the Tax Administration Act. The confidentiality provisions of the TAA apply to SARS officials but permit disclosure in the course of official duties or where information is public. The applicants did not identify any specific confidential taxpayer information at risk nor demonstrate special circumstances justifying departure from open justice under section 32 of the Superior Courts Act. The practice in the Tax Court does not extend to High…

Source excerpt

• Open Justice
• Taxpayer Information Secrecy
• In Camera Hearing
• Superior Courts Act Section 32
• Tax Administration Act Chapter 6