South Africa Case Law

Senwedi v S (CCT 225/20)

Senwedi v S (CCT 225/20) [2021] ZACC 12; 2022 (1) SACR 229 (CC); 2023 (4) BCLR 449 (CC) (21 May 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 225/20

Judges

Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, Victor

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court was not empowered to impose a non-parole period of 25 years at the time of sentencing, as section 276B of the Criminal Procedure Act only came into operation on 1 October 2004, after the applicant's conviction and sentence. The imposition of the non-parole period constituted an increased sentence not permitted by law at the relevant time and was therefore invalid. The Court further found that the applicant and his co-accused were not afforded an opportunity to address the fixing of the non-parole period, which amounted to a fatal procedural mi…

Source excerpt

• Non Parole Period
• Retrospective Application Of Statute
• Right To Freedom
• Least Severe Punishment
• Fair Trial Rights

S M v S (676/18)

S M v S (676/18) [2018] ZASCA 162 (28 November 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

676/18

Judges

Cachalia, Wallis, Makgoka, Carelse, Matojane

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a non-parole period fixed for offences committed before section 276B of the Criminal Procedure Act came into force.

• Non Parole Period
• Retrospective Application Of Statute
• Sentencing
• Parole Eligibility
• Non-parole-period
• Retrospective-application

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited v De Wet NO and Others (JR2568/14)

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited v De Wet NO and Others (JR2568/14) [2018] ZALCJHB 258; (2018) 39 ILJ 2715 (LC) (16 August 2018)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR2568/14

Judge

Basson

The Court held that the amendments to the Employment Equity Act, including section 6(4) relating to equal pay, apply to disputes referred to the CCMA after the amendments became operative, regardless of when the dispute arose. The procedure is determined at the date of institution of proceedings, and since the dispute was referred to the CCMA after 1 August 2014, the amended provisions apply. The Court found that a reasonable attempt had been made to resolve the dispute internally, and the grievance related to pay differentiation as contemplated in section 6(4) of the EEA. The CCMA's jurisdic…

Source excerpt

• Employment Equity Act
• Unfair Discrimination
• Equal Pay
• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Retrospective Application Of Statute

Uithaler v S (A490/2013)

Uithaler v S (A490/2013) [2014] ZAWCHC 13; 2015 (1) SACR 174 (WCC) (10 February 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A490/2013

Judges

Zondi, Van Standen

Sentence appeal partly succeeded where the second rape count should have been indecent assault; the court substituted a 20-year sentence and antedated it.

• Minimum Sentence Act
• Rape
• Indecent Assault
• Retrospective Application Of Statute
• Sentencing Principles
• Criminal-sentencing

South African Land Arrangements CC and Others v Nedbank Ltd (A28/13)

South African Land Arrangements CC and Others v Nedbank Ltd (A28/13) [2013] ZAWCHC 162 (29 October 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A28/13

Judges

B M Griesel, M I Samela

The High Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear a leave-to-appeal application filed after the Superior Courts Act commenced, and struck the matter from the roll.

• Leave To Appeal
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Superior Courts Act
• Retrospective Application Of Statute
• Leave-to-appeal
• High-court-jurisdiction

Accordian Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Tata SA v National Consumer Commission (NCT/3948/2012/101(1) (P))

Accordian Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Tata SA v National Consumer Commission (NCT/3948/2012/101(1) (P)) [2013] ZANCT 28 (10 September 2013)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/3948/2012/101(1) (P)

Judges

T Woker, J Simpson, H Devraj

The Tribunal cancelled a consumer compliance notice, finding the CPA could not be applied retrospectively to a vehicle sale concluded before 31 March 2011.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Compliance Notice Review
• Retrospective Application Of Statute
• Jurisdiction Of Tribunal
• Consumer-protection-act
• Compliance-notice-review

Smartsurv Wireless (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission (NCT/4833/2012/101(1)(P) CPA)

Smartsurv Wireless (Pty) Ltd v National Consumer Commission (NCT/4833/2012/101(1)(P) CPA) [2013] ZANCT 15 (20 June 2013)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/4833/2012/101(1)(P) CPA

Judges

F Manamela, D Terblanche, X May

The Tribunal set aside a compliance notice because the CPA provisions relied on were not retrospectively applicable and the Commission lacked power to order refunds.

• Retrospective Application Of Statute
• Compliance Notice Review
• Consumer Protection Act
• Jurisdiction Of Regulatory Body
• Consumer-protection-act
• Retrospective-application

Peugeot Citroen South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a Citroen South Africa v National Consumer Commission (NCT/4062/2012/101 (1) (P)

Peugeot Citroen South Africa (Pty) Ltd t/a Citroen South Africa v National Consumer Commission (NCT/4062/2012/101 (1) (P) [2012] ZANCT 21 (10 October 2012)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/4062/2012/101 (1) (P)

Judges

J.M. Maseko, D. Terblanche, F. Sibanda

The Tribunal set aside a compliance notice, holding the CPA did not apply retrospectively and that the notice lacked sufficient particularity and proper investigation.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Compliance Notice Review
• Retrospective Application Of Statute
• Functus Officio
• Consumer Protection Act
• Compliance-notice-review

Nicolaisen v Nicolaisen (5259/2009)

Nicolaisen v Nicolaisen (5259/2009) [2009] ZAFSHC 112 (5 November 2009)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5259/2009

Judge

A Kruger

The court found that the amendment to section 37D of the Pension Funds Act, specifically subsection (4)(d), clearly provides for retrospective application to divorce orders granted before 13 September 2007. This legislative change overrides the previous interpretation in Kirchner v Kirchner, which denied retrospective effect. The applicants, having divorced in 2002, are now entitled to have 100% of the first applicant's pension interest in the specified Old Mutual policy allocated to the second applicant as at the date of divorce. The court granted the relief sought, ordering the pension fund…

Source excerpt

• Divorce Pension Interest
• Retrospective Application Of Statute
• Section 7 8 Divorce Act
• Section 37d Pension Funds Act

S v Tshabalala (112/2009)

S v Tshabalala (112/2009) [2009] ZAFSHC 43 (5 March 2009)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

112/2009

Judges

Hancke, R, Van Zyl, R

On special review, the High Court corrected an escape conviction entered under a statute not yet in force, substituted the proper older statute, confirmed count two, and remitted the matter for sentencing.

• Review Proceedings
• Incorrect Charge
• Retrospective Application Of Statute
• Escape From Custody
• Criminal-law
• Special-review