South Africa Case Law

Schultz v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (76/2023)

Schultz v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (76/2023) [2024] ZASCA 77; 2024 (2) SACR 294 (SCA) (23 May 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

76/2023

Judges

Mothle, Hughes, Mabindla-Boqwana, Seegobin, Keightley

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the power to make an extradition request to a foreign State, specifically the United States, vests exclusively in the Minister of Justice as a member of the national executive. This conclusion is supported by the Constitution, the Extradition Act, and customary international law. The Court reasoned that extradition requests are acts of sovereignty between States and inherently implicate foreign relations, which are the preserve of the executive. The absence of express provisions in the Extradition Act regarding outgoing requests does not negate the Minist…

Source excerpt

• Extradition Act
• Executive Powers
• Separation Of Powers
• Customary International Law
• Ministerial Discretion
• Prosecutorial Independence

Nzuza and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (70192/17)

Nzuza and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (70192/17) [2024] ZAGPJHC 335 (15 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

70192/17

Judge

Mlambo JP

The court found that it had jurisdiction over the matter as the NDPP and NPA are based within its area. The applicants failed to prosecute their review application expeditiously, remaining inactive for over six years without any explanation, which constituted an abuse of court process and prejudiced the administration of justice. The court held that such conduct warranted dismissal of the application. On the merits, the NDPP's refusal to review and set aside the DPP's decision to prosecute was rationally connected to the information before him, including evidence from multiple witnesses and c…

Source excerpt

• Principle Of Legality
• Prosecutorial Independence
• Abuse Of Process
• Delay In Prosecution
• Jurisdiction Of High Court

Rodrigues v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (1186/2019)

Rodrigues v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (1186/2019) [2021] ZASCA 87; [2021] 3 All SA 775 (SCA); 2021 (2) SACR 333 (SCA) (21 June 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1186/2019

Judges

Maya, Cachalia, Dlodlo, Ledwaba, Poyo-Dlwati

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the extraordinary delay in prosecuting the appellant, while partly attributable to political interference, did not result in demonstrable trial-related prejudice sufficient to justify a permanent stay of prosecution. The periods of delay were either due to the operation of law, historical circumstances, or executive decisions, but none irreparably tainted the fairness of the trial. The appellant's rights under section 35(3)(d) of the Constitution were not infringed, as he was furnished with the police docket, indictment, and particulars, and any issues re…

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Unreasonable Delay
• Political Interference
• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Truth And Reconciliation Commission
• Prosecutorial Independence

Moussa v S and Another (181/2014)

Moussa v S and Another (181/2014) [2015] ZASCA 61; [2015] 2 All SA 565 (SCA); 2015 (2) SACR 537 (SCA) (14 April 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

181/2014

Judges

Navsa, Ponnan, Mhlantla, Mbha, Zondi

Section 38 of the National Prosecuting Authority Act is not unconstitutional. The statutory scheme establishes a single national prosecuting authority with strict hierarchical controls and supervision, ensuring that private counsel appointed under section 38 act under the direction of senior NPA officials who have taken the prescribed oath. The absence of a specific oath for private prosecutors does not undermine prosecutorial independence or impartiality, nor does it violate the accused's right to a fair trial. The Constitution requires that prosecutions be conducted without fear, favour, or…

Source excerpt

• National Prosecuting Authority Act
• Prosecutorial Independence
• Constitutional Validity
• Appointment Of Private Prosecutors
• Fair Trial Rights
• Oath Of Office

Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and others (263/11)

Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and others (263/11) [2011] ZASCA 241; 2012 (1) SA 417 (SCA); [2012] 1 All SA 243 (SCA); 2012 (3) BCLR 291 (SCA) (1 December 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

263/11

Judges

Navsa, Heher, Mhlantla, Majiedt, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the President's decision to appoint Mr Simelane as National Director of Public Prosecutions was invalid and inconsistent with the Constitution and the National Prosecuting Authority Act. The requirement that the appointee be a 'fit and proper person' is an objective jurisdictional fact, not a matter of subjective presidential discretion. The President failed to properly interrogate Mr Simelane's fitness for office, disregarding serious concerns raised in the Ginwala Enquiry and the Public Service Commission report, and relied on superficial enquiries and…

Source excerpt

• Appointment Of Ndpp
• Fit And Proper Person
• Prosecutorial Independence
• Executive Action Review
• Jurisdictional Facts
• Rule Of Law

Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (59628/2009)

Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (59628/2009) [2010] ZAGPPHC 194 (10 November 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

59628/2009

Judge

Van der Byl

The High Court dismissed the DA’s challenge to Menzi Simelane’s appointment as NDPP, finding no basis to set aside the President’s decision on the papers.

• Appointment Of Ndpp
• Fit And Proper Person
• Prosecutorial Independence
• Principle Of Legality
• Executive Discretion
• Constitutional Review

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma (573/08)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma (573/08) [2009] ZASCA 1; 2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA) ; 2009 (1) SACR 361 (SCA) ; 2009 (4) BCLR 393 (SCA) ; [2009] 2 All SA 243 (SCA) (12 January 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

573/08

Judges

Harms, Farlam, Ponnan, Maya, Cachalia

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 179(5)(d) of the Constitution does not apply to a reconsideration by the NDPP of his own earlier decisions, but only to reviews of decisions made by DPPs or other prosecutors for whom a DPP is responsible. The Ngcuka decision not to prosecute Mr Zuma was not final and was limited to specific counts; the subsequent Mpshe decision was not a review of the Ngcuka decision but a new decision based on additional evidence and changed circumstances. Mr Zuma did not have a legitimate expectation to be invited to make representations, as there was no clear…

Source excerpt

• Prosecutorial Independence
• Review Of Prosecutorial Decisions
• Legitimate Expectation
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Motion Proceedings
• Costs Orders

Bonugli and Another v Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (17709/2006)

Bonugli and Another v Deputy National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (17709/2006) [2008] ZAGPHC 28 (1 February 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

17709/2006

Judge

B R Du Plessis

The High Court set aside the appointment of private advocates as prosecutors because complainant funding and prior involvement created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

• Prosecutorial Independence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Appointment Of Ad Hoc Prosecutors
• Conflict Of Interest
• Section 179 Constitution
• National Prosecuting Authority Act