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
S v Ndzishe (221/2023; 222/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 167; 2023 (2) SACR 419 (WCC) (20 July 2023)
On automatic review, the High Court set aside two drug-possession convictions because guilty-plea questioning was inadequate and legal representation issues arose.
Ramoejane v S (A7/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 115 (29 April 2021)
The appeal court found that the trial court correctly evaluated the evidence and was justified in rejecting the appellant's version as improbable and false beyond reasonable doubt. The inconsistencies in the State's evidence were minor and did not undermine the reliability of the testimony. The chain of evidence for the drugs was formally admitted by the defence and supported by a forensic affidavit, making further proof unnecessary. The magistrate's questioning of the appellant was for clarification and did not amount to irregularity or unfairness. The trial court applied the correct approac…
Source excerpt
Ngubane v S (A1436/17, 09/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 869 (10 December 2018)
High Court review confirming a drug-possession conviction and fine, but setting aside a magistrate’s order declaring the accused unfit to possess a firearm.
State v Motladile (R91/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 144; 2019 (1) SACR 415 (FB) (21 September 2018)
The proceedings were not in accordance with justice because the accused, who was unrepresented, was not properly questioned to establish his understanding of the charge and the nature of the substance involved. The charge sheet was defective, lacking sufficient detail and failing to allege intention or ensure the accused understood what constituted an undesirable dependence producing substance. The presiding magistrate failed to advise the accused of the defects in the charge sheet and did not ensure the accused's rights were protected during the trial. These irregularities resulted in a viol…
Source excerpt
S v Mkulu (1773) [2018] ZAWCHC 91; 2018 (2) SACR 408 (WCC) (2 August 2018)
The court found that the accused's conduct, as revealed by s 112(1)(b) questioning, did not go beyond acting as an agent for a friend to acquire dagga for personal use. There was no evidence of supply, sale, or any activity beyond acquisition. The magistrate misapplied the statutory definition and relevant case law, particularly S v Solomon and S v Naidoo, which require clear facts establishing dealing rather than mere possession. The statutory presumption was invalid and not applicable. Given the gross delay in review and the accused's payment of the fine, the interests of justice required f…
Source excerpt
S v Okankwa (A278/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 324 (26 April 2016)
The court found that the accused was improperly convicted on two separate counts for possession of cannabis and methcathinone, as both substances are listed in the same schedule and possession at the same time constitutes a single offence. The sentence imposed by the Magistrate was partially irregular, specifically the compensation order under Section 300(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as there was no evidence of damage or loss to any person and no application for compensation was made. The court amended the conviction to a single count and substituted the sentence to five years imprisonme…
Source excerpt
Solani v S (CA&R331/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 17 (22 March 2016)
Appeal against sentence in a drug-possession case succeeded after the court held that the magistrate over-emphasised deterrence and failed to individualise sentence.
S v Vilakazi (A884/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 986; 2016 (2) SACR 432 (GP) (7 December 2015)
Special review of a drug-possession sentence: the High Court confirmed the conviction but set aside and replaced the sentence for irregularity.
S v Lephallo (136/2014(B)) [2014] ZAFSHC 139 (4 September 2014)
The magistrate failed to ensure that the accused's constitutional rights were protected, specifically the right to legal representation and to be informed of the charges with sufficient detail. The accused was convicted and sentenced without proper procedure, including the absence of an enquiry into his plea and failure to allow both parties to address the court before sentencing. These procedural irregularities constitute serious misdirections and violations of the accused's right to a fair trial. As a result, both the conviction and sentence must be set aside and the matter remitted for a h…
Source excerpt
S v Titus (C1658/2012) [2014] ZAWCHC 10 (10 February 2014)
Automatic review of a drug-possession conviction was successful because the single-witness evidence was not properly cautioned and the sentence process was irregular.
Explore more
