South Africa Case Law

Rose v National Prosecuting Authority and Others (056281/2025)

Rose v National Prosecuting Authority and Others (056281/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 549 (15 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

056281/2025

Judge

Neukircher

The court held that the accused's representations to the National Prosecuting Authority are privileged and made on a without-prejudice basis, as confirmed by the NPA's PAIA Manual and relevant case law. The applicant, as a private prosecutor, does not stand in the same position as the NDPP, as he acts in his own interest and not in the public interest. Disclosure of the representations would confer an unfair advantage in criminal proceedings, allowing the applicant to tailor his evidence to the accused's version. The exceptions to the privilege rule do not apply in this case, and the applican…

Source excerpt

• Private Prosecution
• Legal Privilege
• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Nolle Prosequi
• Without Prejudice Rule

Mathunyane and Another v Mokoena (5722/2024)

Mathunyane and Another v Mokoena (5722/2024) [2024] ZAMPMHC 61 (18 November 2024)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

5722/2024

Judge

JL Bhengu

The court set aside a private prosecution summons for lack of locus standi, held extra charges unlawful, and barred reinstitution.

• Private Prosecution
• Locus Standi
• Abuse Of Process
• Electoral Offences
• Nolle Prosequi Certificate
• Private-prosecution

Polovin v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (1230/2022)

Polovin v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (1230/2022) [2024] ZASCA 140; [2024] 4 All SA 675 (SCA); 2025 (1) SACR 1 (SCA) (17 October 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1230/2022

Judges

Mothle, Weiner, Smith, Coppin, Naidoo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the nolle prosequi certificate issued by the DPP is not administrative action and is not reviewable under PAJA; only the underlying decision not to prosecute is subject to review on legality and rationality grounds. The jurisdictional requirements for private prosecution under s 7(1)(a) of the CPA were met, as the second respondent suffered injury to her personality rights, dignity, and privacy. The DPP was entitled to re-issue the certificate and include additional charges, as the right to prosecute had not prescribed and the charges arose from the same…

Source excerpt

• Private Prosecution
• Nolle Prosequi Certificate
• Jurisdictional Requirements
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Personality Rights
• Costs In Private Prosecution

S v Zuma and Another (Reasons) (CCD30/2018)

S v Zuma and Another (Reasons) (CCD30/2018) [2024] ZAKZPHC 80 (11 September 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

CCD30/2018

Judge

Chili

The High Court gave reasons for refusing Jacob Zuma’s bid to remove prosecutor Billy Downer, holding the grounds were already rejected and no fair-trial breach was shown.

• Removal Of Prosecutor
• Abuse Of Process
• Fair Trial Rights
• Private Prosecution
• Disclosure Of Information
• Removal-of-prosecutor

Zuma v Downer and Another (788/2023)

Zuma v Downer and Another (788/2023) [2023] ZASCA 132; [2023] 4 All SA 644 (SCA); 2024 (2) SA 356 (SCA); 2024 (1) SACR 589 (SCA) (13 October 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

788/2023

Judges

Molemela, Ponnan, Saldulker, Mocumie, Mothle

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the private prosecution initiated by Mr Zuma against Mr Downer and Ms Maughan was an abuse of process, instituted for ulterior purposes including delaying his criminal trial and removing Mr Downer as prosecutor. The charges were found to be unfounded and unsustainable, with no confidential information disclosed and no cognisable offence committed. The court held that permitting the private prosecution to continue pending appeal would perpetuate the abuse and cause irreparable harm to the respondents, including undermining press freedom and public confide…

Source excerpt

• Private Prosecution
• Abuse Of Process
• Suspension Of Order Pending Appeal
• Irreparable Harm
• Press Freedom
• Punitive Costs

Zuma v President Of The Republic Of South Africa and Others (0027676/2022)

Zuma v President Of The Republic Of South Africa and Others (0027676/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1026; 2024 (1) SACR 660 (GJ) (12 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

0027676/2022

Judges

Ismail, Baqwa, Modiba

The High Court dismissed Jacob Zuma’s application for leave to appeal, holding that he had not met the statutory threshold and that his security-deposit arguments failed.

• Private Prosecution
• Security Deposit
• Leave To Appeal
• Condonation
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Review Of Summons

D.T v Magistrate Bester and Others (3376/2022)

D.T v Magistrate Bester and Others (3376/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 334 (23 August 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3376/2022

Judges

Daniso, Cronje

The High Court reviewed a magistrate’s bare acquittal on a private perjury prosecution and ordered a proper section 310(1) response with reasons.

• Private Prosecution
• Magistrates Court Review
• Failure To Provide Reasons
• Section 310 Criminal Procedure Act
• Rule 43 Interim Maintenance
• Private-prosecution

Maughan v Zuma and Another; Downer v Zuma and Another (12770/22P; 13062/22P)

Maughan v Zuma and Another; Downer v Zuma and Another (12770/22P; 13062/22P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 75 (3 August 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

12770/22P; 13062/22P

Judges

Kruger, Henriques, Masipa

The court held that orders setting aside Zuma’s private prosecution would operate pending appeal, finding exceptional circumstances, irreparable harm, and no countervailing harm to Zuma.

• Private Prosecution
• Abuse Of Process
• Superior Courts Act Section 18
• Irreparable Harm
• Costs Orders
• Private-prosecution

President of the Republic of South Africa v Zuma and Others (0027676/2022)

President of the Republic of South Africa v Zuma and Others (0027676/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 783; [2023] 3 All SA 853 (GJ); 2024 (1) SACR 32 (GJ) (5 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

0027676/2022

Judges

Ismail, Baqwa, Modiba

The Court found that the nolle prosequi certificates issued by the DPP did not relate to any charge against Mr Ramaphosa, nor did they specify him as a suspect or the relevant offences. The certificates were vague and failed to meet statutory requirements. The summons issued against Mr Ramaphosa were therefore unlawful, invalid, and unconstitutional. Mr Zuma failed to comply with the requirement to pay security before issuing the summons. The private prosecution was instituted for an ulterior motive, namely to trigger the ANC's step aside rule and prevent Mr Ramaphosa from contesting election…

Source excerpt

• Private Prosecution
• Nolle Prosequi Certificate
• Abuse Of Process
• Standing
• Interdictory Relief
• Rule Of Law

Maughan v Zuma and Others (12770/22P;13062/22P)

Maughan v Zuma and Others (12770/22P;13062/22P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 59; [2023] 3 All SA 484 (KZP); 2023 (5) SA 467 (KZP); 2023 (2) SACR 435 (KZP) (7 June 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

12770/22P;13062/22P

Judges

Kruger, Henriques, Masipa

The court found that the respondent, Mr Zuma, failed to produce a valid nolle prosequi certificate in respect of Ms Maughan at the time the summons was issued, rendering the private prosecution unlawful. Furthermore, Mr Zuma did not demonstrate a substantial and peculiar interest arising from any injury suffered as required by section 7(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the alleged disclosures did not violate his rights or cause actionable harm. The court held that the private prosecutions were instituted for ulterior purposes, namely to intimidate, harass, and silence the applicants in th…

Source excerpt

• Private Prosecution
• Abuse Of Process
• Slapp Suit
• Freedom Of Expression
• Nolle Prosequi Certificate
• Standing To Prosecute