South Africa Case Law

Liberty Group Limited t/a Liberty Life v K & D Telemarketing and Others (1290/18)

Liberty Group Limited t/a Liberty Life v K & D Telemarketing and Others (1290/18) [2020] ZASCA 41 (20 April 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1290/18

Judges

Navsa, Van der Merwe, Ledwaba

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an order of absolution from the instance at the end of trial is a definitive judgment that terminates the suit. The plaintiff, Liberty, did not appeal the order of absolution and only sought to reopen its case years later to avoid prescription. The court found that the established common law, as set out in Steytler v Fitzgerald, requires a fresh suit to be instituted after absolution; reopening under the same case number and pleadings is impermissible. The court rejected Liberty's reliance on African Farms, noting that its dictum applies to motion proceed…

Source excerpt

• Absolution From The Instance
• Prescription
• Reopening Of Trial
• Finality Of Litigation

S v Ndweni and Others (376/94, 390/94, 639/98)

S v Ndweni and Others (376/94, 390/94, 639/98) [1999] ZASCA 51; [1999] 4 All SA 377 (A) (31 August 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

376/94, 390/94, 639/98

Judges

Smalberger, Grosskopf, Mpati

The court found that the applicants had made out a satisfactory case for the relief sought, as the new evidence regarding APLA's claimed responsibility, Dolo's affidavit, and identification evidence from witnesses was materially relevant and only came to light after the trial. The requirements for reopening the case and leading further evidence were satisfied, particularly given the unusual circumstances and the dictates of fairness. The court emphasized that the final outcome would depend on the trial court's assessment of all the evidence, and that success in the application did not guarant…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Adduce Further Evidence
• Reopening Of Trial
• Identification Evidence
• Amnesty Applications
• Confession Evidence

S v Engelbrecht (40/91)

S v Engelbrecht (40/91) [1992] ZASCA 170 (24 September 1992)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

40/91

Judges

Grosskopf EM, Eksteen, Howie

The court refused to reopen sentencing proceedings, holding that the appellant gave no reasonable explanation for not presenting alcohol-dependence evidence earlier.

• Sentencing
• New Evidence
• Alcohol Dependence
• Reopening Of Trial
• Criminal-sentencing
• New-evidence

Sefatsa and Others v Attorney-General, Transvaal (304/88)

Sefatsa and Others v Attorney-General, Transvaal (304/88) [1988] ZASCA 143; [1989] 4 All SA 336 (AD) (23 November 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

304/88

Judges

Rabie, Corbett, Joubert, Hoexter, Van Heerden

The court held that neither the trial court nor the appellate court has inherent jurisdiction to reopen a criminal trial or hear further evidence after conviction and sentence have been finalized and all appeals have been dismissed. The jurisdiction of superior courts in criminal matters is strictly governed by statute, specifically the Criminal Procedure Act, which does not provide for the reopening of a trial or the making of a special entry after the appeal process has been exhausted. The remedy of restitutio in integrum is not available in criminal proceedings, even where fraud or perjury…

Source excerpt

• Functus Officio
• Special Entry Procedure
• Reopening Of Trial
• Restitutio In Integrum
• Jurisdiction Of Superior Courts

S v Nkosi (240/84)

S v Nkosi (240/84) [1985] ZASCA 88 (19 September 1985)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

240/84

Judges

Miller, Hefer, Grosskopf

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's case was closed by his attorney without his assent and contrary to his wishes, depriving him of the opportunity to give evidence and call witnesses in his defence. The State's concession that the trial should be reopened was considered appropriate in the circumstances. The requirements of justice demanded that the conviction and sentence be set aside and the matter remitted to the trial court for further evidence to be received and considered. If the original judicial officer is unavailable, the Attorney-General may charge the appellant d…

Source excerpt

• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Reopening Of Trial
• Right To Present Defence Evidence