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 Krejcir and Others (SS26-2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 342 (24 October 2014)
The High Court held that a witness could not refuse cross-examination on self-incrimination grounds where the feared charge was perjury arising from his own testimony.
Nel v Le Roux NO and Others (CCT30/95) [1996] ZACC 6; 1996 (4) BCLR 592; 1996 (3) SA 562 (4 April 1996)
Section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, when properly construed in light of the Constitution, does not compel an examinee to answer questions that would unjustifiably infringe constitutional rights. The 'just excuse' exception in section 189(1) provides sufficient protection, and any compulsion to answer must be justified under section 33(1) of the Constitution. The summary imprisonment procedure is not a criminal trial and does not violate fair trial rights or the right not to be detained without trial. Section 205 proceedings are judicial, not administrative, and the presiding officer is…
Source excerpt
Bernstein and Others v Bester NO and Others (CCT23/95) [1996] ZACC 2; 1996 (4) BCLR 449; 1996 (2) SA 751 (27 March 1996)
The Constitutional Court upheld sections 417 and 418 of the Companies Act, subject to the prior ruling barring compelled self-incrimination in criminal cases.
Magmoed v Janse Van Rensburg and Others (611/90) [1992] ZASCA 208; 1993 (1) SA 777 (AD); [1993] 4 All SA 175 (AD) ; [1993] 1 All SA 396 (A) (25 November 1992)
The court held that questions about common purpose and acquittal on the evidence were factual, not reservable questions of law. It excluded inquest evidence but admitted prior trial evidence.
S v Mabaso and Another (60/89) [1990] ZASCA 24; 1990 (3) SA 185 (AD); (26 March 1990)
The majority held that the magistrate's failure to inform the appellants of their right to legal representation during section 119 proceedings did not, in itself, render the admissions and pleas made during those proceedings inadmissible at trial. The court found that the irregularity would only be material if the appellants were shown to be ignorant of their rights and prejudiced thereby. In this case, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the appellants were unaware of their rights or that the irregularity resulted in a failure of justice. The trial court was correct in admitting…
Source excerpt
Explore more
