South Africa Case Law

Van Veen v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (104/2024)

Van Veen v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (104/2024) [2025] ZASCA 46; [2025] 3 All SA 85 (SCA); 2025 (2) SACR 115 (SCA) (17 April 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

104/2024

Judges

Mokgohloa, Weiner, Smith, Molitsoane, Norman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that although the delay in prosecuting the appellant was manifestly inordinate and unreasonable, the appellant failed to establish that such delay caused him irreparable trial-related prejudice. The medical condition suffered by the appellant was not shown to be causally linked to the delay, and the evidence did not support the contention that the delay resulted in his intellectual deficits. The processes provided in sections 77 and 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act constitute an adequate remedy for determining the appellant's capacity to stand trial. A permane…

Source excerpt

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Fair Trial Rights
• Unreasonable Delay
• Mental Capacity To Stand Trial
• Irreparable Trial Prejudice

Moses and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions (3518/2023)

Moses and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions (3518/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 120 (29 April 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3518/2023

Judge

Molitsoane

The High Court dismissed an application for a permanent stay of prosecution, finding the delay and missing material did not justify ending the criminal case.

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Right To Fair Trial
• Unreasonable Delay
• Disclosure Of Evidence
• Section 252a Trap
• Privileged Information

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

Van der Walt and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another - On Review (1176/2023)

Van der Walt and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Another - On Review (1176/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 117 (12 October 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

1176/2023

Judges

Rugunanan, Beshe

The applicants failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the charges or the grounds for their objections, rendering the review impossible. Their reliance on the Superior Courts Act is misplaced, as they did not allege any of the statutory grounds for review such as bias or corruption. The PAJA does not apply to judicial functions of magistrates or decisions to institute or continue prosecution. The applicants misconstrued the definition of administrative action and failed to establish any basis for impugning the competence of the prosecuting authority. The jurisdictional objection was not…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Magistrates Decision
• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Jurisdiction Of Trial Court
• Administrative Action Exclusion
• Delay In Review
• Section 85 Objection

Van Veen v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Others - Application for Leave to Appeal (2280/2022)

Van Veen v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Others - Application for Leave to Appeal (2280/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 228 (31 August 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2280/2022

Judge

A.G. Binns-Ward

The court found that while there was an unreasonable delay in instituting criminal proceedings, the applicant failed to demonstrate material trial-related prejudice. The medical evidence of intellectual incapacity was uncontroverted but fell within the scope of statutory remedies provided by sections 77 and 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Applying the principle of subsidiarity, the court held that a civil application for a stay of prosecution was precluded. Furthermore, the applicant did not satisfy the requirements for final interdictory relief due to the availability of adequate alternati…

Source excerpt

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Unreasonable Delay
• Intellectual Incapacity
• Subsidiarity
• Final Interdict
• Fair Trial Rights

Van Veen v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Others (2280/2022)

Van Veen v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Others (2280/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 174; 2023 (2) SACR 370 (WCC) (31 July 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2280/2022

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court found that while the delay in prosecuting the applicant was inordinate and unreasonable, the applicant failed to provide substantiating detail of material trial-related prejudice resulting from the delay, apart from his medical condition. The medical evidence established that the applicant suffered intellectual disability due to a brain tumour, rendering him unable to participate meaningfully in his defence. However, the Criminal Procedure Act provides a specific mechanism (sections 77 and 79) for addressing accused persons' incapacity to stand trial, and the principle of subsidiari…

Source excerpt

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Unreasonable Delay
• Trial Related Prejudice
• Mental Incapacity
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Adequate Alternative Remedy

Ndlovu v S (268/2022)

Ndlovu v S (268/2022) [2023] ZAMPMHC 24; 2023 (2) SACR 358 (ML) (14 July 2023)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

268/2022

Judge

Legodi JP

The High Court dismissed an application for a permanent stay of rape proceedings, finding the delay was largely caused by the applicant and that trial should continue.

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Unreasonable Delay
• Fair Trial Rights
• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 35 Constitution

Taylor v Regional Court Magistrate, Nemavhidi and Another (12398/19)

Taylor v Regional Court Magistrate, Nemavhidi and Another (12398/19) [2023] ZAGPJHC 604 (31 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

12398/19

Judges

Thupaatlase, Johnson

The High Court held that the regional magistrate's court correctly found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a permanent stay of prosecution based on pre-trial delay or constitutional grounds. The court relied on established precedent, notably S v Naidoo and Van der Walt v DPP, which confirm that such relief must be sought in the High Court. Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act provides remedies only for eliminating delay in pending proceedings, not for terminating prosecutions. The applicant failed to demonstrate actual, significant prejudice, relying instead on hypothetical claims regardi…

Source excerpt

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Jurisdiction Of Magistrates Court
• Unreasonable Delay
• Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Right To Fair Trial

Aslam v President: Health Professions Council Of South Africa and Others

Aslam v President: Health Professions Council Of South Africa and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 227; 34380/2021 (3 April 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34380/2021

Judge

D Van Den Bogert

The court found that the delay of over thirteen years in prosecuting the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant was inexcusable and resulted from institutional incompetence within the Health Professions Council and its disciplinary structures. The loss of material evidence, including medical records and the death of a key witness, rendered it impossible to conduct a fair trial. The respondents' insistence on proceeding despite these circumstances demonstrated a lack of procedural fairness and rationality, infringing the applicant's constitutional rights under sections 33 and 35. The c…

Source excerpt

• Unreasonable Delay
• Disciplinary Proceedings
• Procedural Fairness
• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Health Professions Act
• Judicial Review

Korver v Regional Magistrate, Specialised Crime Court, Bellville, Western Cape and Others (12891/2021)

Korver v Regional Magistrate, Specialised Crime Court, Bellville, Western Cape and Others (12891/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 26 (4 March 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12891/2021

Judges

J Cloete, L Nuku

The court found that the magistrate's order compelling the defence to disclose the provisional auditor's report was irregular, as the applicant was not afforded an opportunity to be heard, violating the audi alteram partem principle. However, upon examining the contents of the report and the circumstances of its disclosure, the court concluded that the irregularity did not result in irremediable prejudice to the applicant's fair trial rights. The report contained mostly information that would be available to the State and complainants in any event, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that…

Source excerpt

• Audi Alteram Partem
• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Pre Trial Disclosure
• Fair Trial Rights
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Judicial Irregularity