South Africa Case Law

Brackenfell Trailer Hire (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Transport (20825/2017; 22046/2018)

Brackenfell Trailer Hire (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Transport (20825/2017; 22046/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 30; 2019 (2) SACR 62 (WCC) (20 March 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20825/2017; 22046/2018

Judge

A.G. Binns-Ward

The court held that the presumption in section 73(1) of the National Road Traffic Act does not operate against the owner of a trailer in prosecutions for driving offences, as the statutory language and definitions make clear that only the owner of the vehicle being driven is subject to the presumption. The inclusion of 'trailer' in the definition of 'motor vehicle' does not extend the presumption to trailer owners for driving offences. However, the presumption in section 73(2) regarding parking offences may apply to trailer owners, as the offence concerns the stationary position of the vehicl…

Source excerpt

• Statutory Interpretation
• Presumptions In Criminal Law
• National Road Traffic Act
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Fair Trial Rights

Gogwane v S (CA&R61/2016)

Gogwane v S (CA&R61/2016) [2016] ZANCHC 59 (12 August 2016)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R61/2016

Judges

Olivier, SL Erasmus

The High Court upheld Lawrence Gogwane’s conviction for dealing in Mandrax but reduced his sentence from nine years to six years.

• Drugs And Drug Trafficking Act
• Presumptions In Criminal Law
• Fair Trial Rights
• Sentence Appeal
• Evaluation Of Evidence
• Criminal-appeal

S v Dlhamini (A300/15)

S v Dlhamini (A300/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 320 (12 May 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A300/15

Judges

S.A.M Baqwa, J.W. Louw

The High Court set aside a conviction entered under repealed firearms legislation and ordered the prosecution to proceed de novo under the correct statute.

• Obsolete Legislation
• Firearms Control Act
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Presumptions In Criminal Law
• Criminal-review
• Repealed-legislation

S v Jacobs (391/1987)

S v Jacobs (391/1987) [1988] ZASCA 127; [1989] 2 All SA 1 (A) (30 September 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

391/1987

Judges

Van Heerden, Smalberger, Milne, Steyn, Kumleben

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the presumption in section 10(1)(a) of Act 41 of 1971 only operates if the State proves that the accused knowingly possessed dagga. The Court rejected the interpretation in S v Qunta and similar cases, finding that the presumption cannot apply where the accused lacks knowledge of the nature of the substance. The Court found that the magistrate erred in requiring the appellant to prove his lack of knowledge without the State first establishing that he knew the bags contained dagga. Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that the State did not pro…

Source excerpt

• Presumptions In Criminal Law
• Mens Rea
• Possession Of Prohibited Substances
• Burden Of Proof
• Interpretation Of Statutes