South Africa Case Law

B.V v L.V (9934/2018)

B.V v L.V (9934/2018) [2018] ZAWCHC 118 (17 September 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

9934/2018

Judge

MacWilliam

The court found that the respondent's failure to comply with the court order was not wilful or mala fide, but rather due to her genuine inability to afford the costs of the psychiatrist and social worker. The applicant did not dispute her unemployment or provide evidence that she could pay for the required services. The respondent's explanation was accepted as bona fide, and the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving contempt. The facilitation agreement and relocation of the children rendered some aspects of the order moot. The application for contempt was therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Supervised Contact
• Psychiatric Assessment
• Blood Test Reporting
• Best Interests Of Children

S v Dikgomo (R67/2018)

S v Dikgomo (R67/2018) [2018] ZANWHC 91 (26 July 2018)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

R67/2018

Judges

R.D Hendricks, J.T Djaje

The High Court set aside a conviction and sentence after finding the accused’s mental capacity had not been properly assessed before trial and sentencing.

• Mental Capacity To Stand Trial
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 304
• Psychiatric Assessment
• Setting Aside Conviction
• Mental-capacity-to-stand-trial
• Criminal-procedure-act

City of Cape Town and Others v K (17436/09)

City of Cape Town and Others v K (17436/09) [2016] ZAWCHC 164; 2017 (1) SA 593 (WCC) (1 June 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17436/09

Judge

M Sher

The court found that the applicants had not demonstrated that a further psychiatric examination of the respondent was necessary or desirable for the assessment of damages. The respondent had already been examined by multiple experts, including psychiatrists and psychologists, whose opinions were overwhelmingly consistent regarding her diagnosis and prognosis. The court held that compelling the respondent to undergo yet another examination would be oppressive and unfair, given the psychological harm and distress caused by repeated assessments. The applicants' motivation appeared to be tactical…

Source excerpt

• Rule 36 Medical Examination
• Bodily Integrity
• Privacy And Dignity
• Quantification Of Damages
• Psychiatric Assessment
• Constitutional Rights Limitation

EWN v Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd (JS654/10)

EWN v Pharmaco Distribution (Pty) Ltd (JS654/10) [2015] ZALCJHB 329; (2016) 37 ILJ 449 (LC) (22 September 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS654/10

Judge

Lagrange

The Labour Court held that a psychiatric assessment instruction was unlawful discrimination based on bipolar disorder and that the dismissal was automatically unfair.

• Automatically Unfair Dismissal
• Unfair Discrimination
• Psychiatric Assessment
• Employment Equity Act
• Contractual Medical Testing
• Automatically-unfair-dismissal

S v Thanda (140060, CA&R348/2014)

S v Thanda (140060, CA&R348/2014) [2014] ZAECGHC 100 (7 November 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

140060, CA&R348/2014

Judges

C K Mey, J Roberson

The High Court set aside a regional court’s psychiatric referral, murder finding, and detention order after finding non-compliance with section 79 and insufficient proof of the act.

• Mental Incapacity
• Psychiatric Assessment
• Criminal Responsibility
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Unlawful Killing
• Mental-incapacity

S v Pedro (B247/11)

S v Pedro (B247/11) [2014] ZAWCHC 106; 2015 (1) SACR 41 (WCC); [2014] 4 All SA 114 (WCC) (9 July 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

B247/11

Judges

Binns-Ward, Rogers

The High Court found that the psychiatric panel was not properly constituted as required by section 79(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The magistrate failed to appoint a psychiatrist specifically for the accused and did not appoint a private psychiatrist, nor did the prosecutor apply for dispensation. The psychiatric assessment was thus irregular and invalid. Furthermore, the magistrate erred in entering a verdict of not guilty under section 78(6)(a) where the accused had not pleaded and was found unfit to stand trial; no verdict should have been entered, and the court should have procee…

Source excerpt

• Fitness To Stand Trial
• Psychiatric Assessment
• Culpable Homicide
• Mental Health Care Act
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Detention Order

Van Vuuren v S (A 468/11)

Van Vuuren v S (A 468/11) [2011] ZAGPJHC 185 (7 December 2011)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A 468/11

Judge

FHD Van Oosten

High Court appeal upheld a refusal of bail in a murder case, finding the magistrate misdirected herself and that strict conditions could manage risk.

• Bail Application
• Schedule 5 Offence
• Murder Charge
• Onus Of Proof
• Protection Order
• Psychiatric Assessment

S v Sejane (C1123/09)

S v Sejane (C1123/09) [2009] ZAGPJHC 110 (13 October 2009)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

C1123/09

Judge

Meyer

The review court held that, given the evidence of possible mental defect and drug abuse, the magistrate was obliged under sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Procedure Act to refer the accused for psychiatric assessment before sentencing. The failure to do so constituted a procedural irregularity. The court further noted that the sentencing discretion appeared not to have been properly exercised, as relevant mitigating factors and the accused's mental state were not adequately considered. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remitted for proper enquiry and determinati…

Source excerpt

• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Mental Defect In Criminal Proceedings
• Psychiatric Assessment
• Sentencing Discretion