South Africa Case Law

S v Zikhali (Trial within a Trial) (CC15/23)

S v Zikhali (Trial within a Trial) (CC15/23) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1844 (3 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC15/23

Judge

Cox

The court found that although the accused's general constitutional rights were explained to him, he was not specifically warned that he was not obliged to make a pointing out nor informed of the evidentiary consequences thereof. The officer conducting the pointing out, Col Scheepers, admitted to omitting these warnings. The court held that this omission constituted a material infringement of the accused's constitutional and fair trial rights. The evidence established that the accused was not assaulted or threatened by the officers present, but the failure to properly explain his rights in rel…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Pointing Out
• Section 35 Constitution
• Voluntariness Of Admissions

Nkala v S (A276/2017)

Nkala v S (A276/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 116 (17 April 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A276/2017

Judges

Dosio, Msimeki

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal, finding the conviction safe on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, a voluntary confession, and a valid pointing out.

• Circumstantial Evidence
• Admissibility Of Confession
• Pointing Out
• Onus Of Proof
• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances

Qhinga v S (1327/2016)

Qhinga v S (1327/2016) [2017] ZASCA 149 (15 November 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1327/2016

Judges

Leach, Seriti, Saldulker, Plasket, Mbatha

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that there was no admissible evidence implicating the appellant in the commission of the offences. The content of the pointing-out, which was the only evidence against the appellant, was not proved as the relevant testimony was either never led or lost and could not be reconstructed. Without this evidence, the convictions and sentences could not be sustained. The court also commented on the improper conduct of the police, which cast doubt on the fairness of the trial, but ultimately based its decision on the absence of admissible evidence.

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Pointing Out
• Confession
• Fair Trial Rights
• Onus Of Proof
• Police Misconduct

Nkosi v S (A798/15)

Nkosi v S (A798/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 697 (12 October 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A798/15

Judges

N V Khumalo, N Mali

The court held that the trial court correctly admitted the evidence of the appellant's admission and pointing out, as these were made voluntarily and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, the recovery of stolen items, and the appellant's proximity to the crime scene. The appellant's alibi defence was disregarded because it was not presented under oath or tested, and the appellant declined to call witnesses or testify, despite being advised of his rights. The identification of the appellant as one of the perpetrators was proven beyond reasonable doubt through the com…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Identification
• Alibi Defence
• Pointing Out
• Confession
• Circumstantial Evidence

Molaudzi v S (A422/2015)

Molaudzi v S (A422/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 975 (29 November 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A422/2015

Judges

Mothle, Molahlehi, Davis

The Full Court set aside Bethuel Molaudzi’s conviction and sentence after finding the pointing out evidence was not proved to be freely and voluntarily made.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Pointing Out
• Voluntariness
• Constitutional Rights
• Self Incrimination
• Criminal-law

L.D v S (CA209/2015)

L.D v S (CA209/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 42 (2 June 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA209/2015

Judges

J M Roberson, J E Smith, G H Bloem

The court found that the appellant, a minor at the time of arrest, was not properly informed of his constitutional rights, particularly the right to legal representation, and did not have the assistance of a parent during critical stages. The explanation of rights was given in English, which the appellant did not adequately understand, and the police failed to ensure that he could make an informed decision. Furthermore, the police officer Grootboom unduly influenced the appellant to make the pointing out, which was the only evidence against him. The failure to properly explain rights and faci…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Constitutional Rights
• Child Justice Act
• Pointing Out
• Right To Legal Representation

Ngubane v S (AR345/2013)

Ngubane v S (AR345/2013) [2016] ZAKZPHC 45 (26 May 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR345/2013

Judges

Koen, van Zyl, Seegobin

The court found that the evidence of the pointing out made by the appellant was properly admitted, as it was made freely and voluntarily, with all constitutional rights explained and respected. The interpreter, Warrant Officer Nomvalo, was independent and his evidence was the best available given the death of Captain Auerbach. The circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony and forensic findings, corroborated the appellant's admissions and established his involvement in the planning and execution of the murder. The appellant's failure to testify in his defence, in the face of a stron…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Pointing Out
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Hearsay Evidence
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Contract Killing

Shabalala v S (A 201/2015)

Shabalala v S (A 201/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 262 (17 November 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A 201/2015

Judges

Satchwell, Mailula, Boruchowitz

The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for murder and robbery, finding the circumstantial evidence, including the deceased’s cellphone and the appellant’s conduct, proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Circumstantial Evidence
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Murder
• Pointing Out
• Single Witness Evidence
• Circumstantial-evidence

Motsetse and Another v S (55/02)

Motsetse and Another v S (55/02) [2015] ZAECMHC 41 (19 March 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

55/02

Judges

I.T Stretch, J.W. Eksteen, G. Goosen

Appeal against murder, robbery and firearm convictions upheld after the court found accomplice evidence unreliable, the pointing out inadmissible, and the alibi versions reasonably possibly true.

• Accomplice Evidence
• Admissibility Of Confession
• Pointing Out
• Alibi
• Common Purpose
• Minimum Sentencing

Dan and Another v S (CA294/2014, EL: CC30/2010)

Dan and Another v S (CA294/2014, EL: CC30/2010) [2015] ZAECGHC 143 (27 February 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA294/2014, EL: CC30/2010

Judges

D Van Zyl, B Sandi, J Roberson

The court found that Ms Fortuin's identification of the appellants was credible and reliable, supported by her prior knowledge of them, her detailed description of their clothing, and corroboration from other evidence including the pointing out and confession. The trial court's approach to her evidence was correct, and the additional evidence provided further safeguards and corroboration. The appellants' denials and explanations were found to be unsatisfactory and false. The trial court's findings were justified, and the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Identification Evidence
• Admissibility Of Confession
• Pointing Out
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Murder
• Attempted Murder