South Africa Case Law

Lategan and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Another (314/2022)

Lategan and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Another (314/2022) [2024] ZASCA 74; 2024 (2) SACR 227 (SCA) (10 May 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

314/2022

Judges

Molemela, Hughes, Weiner, Windell, Keightley

Sections 58, 59, and 60 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 are procedural in nature and do not affect the substantive rights of accused persons. These provisions apply to future criminal proceedings, even where the underlying offences were committed before the Act's commencement but prosecuted thereafter. The presumption against retrospectivity does not bar the application of procedural rules to future trials. The regional magistrate's order to remove these sections from the charge sheet was a gross irregularity, properly subject to review rathe…

Source excerpt

• Sexual Offences
• Retrospective Application
• Procedural Vs Substantive Law
• Review Vs Appeal
• Criminal Evidence
• Transitional Provisions

Director of Public Prosecutions Western Cape v Regional Magistrate Wynberg and Others (8999/2020)

Director of Public Prosecutions Western Cape v Regional Magistrate Wynberg and Others (8999/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 201; [2022] 1 All SA 154 (WCC); 2022 (1) SACR 8 (WCC) (13 October 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8999/2020

Judges

Nziweni, T C Ndita

The High Court held that sections 58, 59 and 60 of the Sexual Offences Act are procedural and apply to sexual offence prosecutions instituted after commencement.

• Retrospective Application Of Statutes
• Sexual Offences
• Procedural Vs Substantive Law
• Transitional Provisions
• Fair Trial Rights
• Retrospective-application-of-statutes

Firstrand Bank Limited v Shabangu and Others; Mahomed v Road Accident Fund and Others (2018/43336; 284/2019)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Shabangu and Others; Mahomed v Road Accident Fund and Others (2018/43336; 284/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 267; 2020 (1) SA 155 (GJ) (16 August 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/43336; 284/2019

Judge

Grant

The court held that the amended rule 32, which requires summary judgment applications to be brought only after delivery of a plea, is procedural in nature and does not impair any substantive rights or obligations of the parties. The Interpretation Act 33 of 1957 provides that amendments to laws or rules, as opposed to repeals, take effect from the date of operation and apply to all matters adjudicated thereafter. The common law principle that procedural amendments apply retrospectively unless substantive rights are affected was affirmed. The court found that the new rule enhances fairness and…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Retrospective Application Of Rules
• Interpretation Act
• Procedural Vs Substantive Law

Transnet Ltd. v Ngcezula (288/93)

Transnet Ltd. v Ngcezula (288/93) [1994] ZASCA 192; 1995 (3) SA 538 (AD); [1995] 2 All SA 111 (A) (30 November 1994)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

288/93

Judges

Botha, Van Heerden, Hefer, Nienaber, Howie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the repeal of section 64(3) of the South African Transport Services Act 65 of 1981 did not retrospectively extinguish the accrued rights and obligations of the parties. Both the right of Transnet (as successor to SATS) to resist the claim due to late lodging, and the respondent's right to apply for special leave, survived the repeal by virtue of section 12(2) of the Interpretation Act 33 of 1957. The court found that the respondent had demonstrated special circumstances for her delay, namely her severe injuries and inability to instruct her attorney, and…

Source excerpt

• Statutory Time Bar
• Special Leave To Lodge Claim
• Interpretation Act Application
• Succession Of Liabilities
• Procedural Vs Substantive Law