South Africa Case Law

S v Mokhesi and Others (45/2021)

S v Mokhesi and Others (45/2021) [2025] ZAFSHC 183; 2025 (2) SACR 182 (FB) (13 June 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

45/2021

Judge

Loubser

The court held that none of the six questions advanced by the State constituted valid questions of law as required by section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Most were factual in nature or disguised as questions of law. The extradition request for accused 17 was invalid as it was not made by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, in line with the Schultz precedent. The State was aware of the Schultz decision prior to the extradition and did not act to correct the request. Furthermore, the State's application was not competent as there was no acquittal, only a finding of lack of…

Source excerpt

• Extradition
• Jurisdiction
• Reservation Of Questions Of Law
• Special Plea
• Authority Of Precedent

Director of Public Prosecutions Limpopo v Mbuyane (47/2021)

Director of Public Prosecutions Limpopo v Mbuyane (47/2021) [2025] ZALMPPHC 89 (7 May 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

47/2021

Judge

KL Pillay

The High Court dismissed the State’s bid to reserve questions of law over a DNA-based acquittal, finding the issues were factual and the trial court had assessed the evidence holistically.

• Dna Evidence
• Reservation Of Questions Of Law
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Burden Of Proof
• Reservation-of-questions-of-law
• Dna-evidence

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division v Matsepe and Others (CC11/2021)

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division v Matsepe and Others (CC11/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 20; 2025 (2) SACR 86 (GP) (6 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC11/2021

Judge

PM Mabuse

The court held that section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that questions of law must arise 'on the trial', which is interpreted to mean after arraignment and plea. In this matter, no plea had been entered and the separation order under section 157 of the CPA was interlocutory, not final or definitive, and thus not appealable. The applicant failed to comply with the strict procedural requirements for reservation of questions of law, including proper framing and factual foundation. The authorities cited by the applicant did not support the proposition that section 319(1) is avai…

Source excerpt

• Reservation Of Questions Of Law
• Separation Of Trials
• Interlocutory Orders
• Appealability
• Prosecutorial Prerogative
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act

Director of Public Prosecutions, Limpopo Province v Magakwe (CC106/2022)

Director of Public Prosecutions, Limpopo Province v Magakwe (CC106/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 98 (16 August 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

CC106/2022

Judge

M.G Phatudi

The High Court refused the State’s reservation of questions of law after a guilty admission to culpable homicide, finding the issues were factual, not legal.

• Admission Of Guilt
• Reservation Of Questions Of Law
• Plea Change
• Culpable Homicide
• Conviction Procedure
• Reservation-of-questions-of-law

Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Pooe (348/2019)

Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Pooe (348/2019) [2021] ZASCA 55; [2021] 3 All SA 23 (SCA); 2021 (2) SACR 115 (SCA) (30 April 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

348/2019

Judges

Saldulker, Mbha, Dlodlo, Ledwaba, Mabindla-Boqwana

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the State’s application for leave to appeal, holding that the proposed reservations were factual, not legal, questions.

• Reservation Of Questions Of Law
• Common Purpose
• Necessity Defence
• Appeal Procedure
• Acquittal
• Evaluation Of Evidence

Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Mbonani (1198/2019)

Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Mbonani (1198/2019) [2020] ZASCA 115 (30 September 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1198/2019

Judges

Cachalia, Zondi, Matojane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that admissions in a s 112 plea statement remained proof, and that a confession to a justice of the peace need not be written.

• Reservation Of Questions Of Law
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 319
• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Plea Explanation
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Criminal-procedure

Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Schoeman and Another (904/2017)

Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape v Schoeman and Another (904/2017) [2019] ZASCA 158; 2020 (1) SACR 449 (SCA) (28 November 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

904/2017

Judges

Cachalia, Plasket, Nicholls, Dlodlo, Tsoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State failed to properly reserve questions of law under s 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it did not set out the factual basis upon which the points of law hinged. The alleged errors by the trial court in evaluating circumstantial evidence and applying dolus eventualis were found to be factual, not legal, in nature. The court reaffirmed that s 319 restricts appeals to questions of law and does not permit appeals on factual findings, even if the State is dissatisfied with the inferences drawn by the trial court. The court distinguished the Pi…

Source excerpt

• Reservation Of Questions Of Law
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Dolus Eventualis
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Vat Fraud
• Acquittal Review

S v Makeleni (CC74/2015)

S v Makeleni (CC74/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 66 (18 August 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CC74/2015

Judge

Bloem

The High Court refused the State’s request to reserve questions of law after finding the robbery-related issues were factual, not legal, under section 319.

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Reservation Of Questions Of Law
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Mens Rea
• Murder
• Theft

S v Basson (404/02, 293/02)

S v Basson (404/02, 293/02) [2003] ZASCA 72; [2003] 3 All SA 51 (SCA); 2004 (1) SA 246 (SCA); 2003 (2) SACR 373 (SCA) (3 June 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

404/02, 293/02

Judges

Harms, Zulman, Streicher, Navsa, Heher

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State failed to comply with the procedural requirements for reserving questions of law and condonation. The majority of the State's proposed questions were either academic, related to factual findings rather than legal errors, or were unsupported by the record. The only legal remedy available to the State after an acquittal is to reserve a question of law under section 319, but only where there is a reasonable prospect that a legal error, not a factual error, affected the outcome. The trial judge's refusal to recuse himself was based on the correct le…

Source excerpt

• Reservation Of Questions Of Law
• Recusal Of Judge
• Appeal Rights Of State
• Condonation
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Suspicion Of Bias

Magmoed v Janse Van Rensburg and Others (611/90)

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)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

611/90

Judges

Corbett, Botha, F H Grosskopf, Nicholas, Krieger

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.

• Common Purpose
• Self Incrimination
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Privilege Against Self Incrimination
• Reservation Of Questions Of Law
• Private Prosecution