South Africa Case Law

S v Moseki (R11/2025)

S v Moseki (R11/2025) [2025] ZAFSHC 121 (24 April 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R11/2025

Judges

Reinders, Van Rhyn

The court found that the summary enquiry into Mr Moseki's failure to appear was not conducted in accordance with justice. The magistrate failed to properly inform Mr Moseki, who was unrepresented, of the nature of the proceedings, the charge, and his rights, including the onus to provide a reasonable excuse. The magistrate applied the incorrect statutory provision (section 72(4) instead of section 170(1)) and did not afford Mr Moseki a fair opportunity to prepare a defence or call witnesses. The enquiry did not meet the requirements of fairness, and the proceedings were prejudicial to Mr Mose…

Source excerpt

• Failure To Appear
• Summary Enquiry
• Reverse Onus
• Fair Trial Rights

Sibeko v S and Another (Appeal) (A839/2016)

Sibeko v S and Another (Appeal) (A839/2016) [2025] ZAGPPHC 407 (23 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A839/2016

Judges

Mncube, Mbongwe

The court found that the presumption in section 19(2) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act was not applicable to the facts, as the applicant did not admit to dealing but rather to possession for personal use. The trial court misdirected itself by relying on the presumption and failing to invoke section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act to correct the plea to not guilty. The conviction for dealing was set aside and replaced with possession. The sentence imposed was found to be harsh due to the lack of concurrency, constituting a material misdirection. The appeal succeeded on both conviction a…

Source excerpt

• Drugs And Drug Trafficking Act
• Presumption Of Innocence
• Reverse Onus
• Plea Procedure
• Concurrent Sentences

Amad and Another v Sibiya (22/16783)

Amad and Another v Sibiya (22/16783) [2022] ZAGPJHC 853 (3 October 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22/16783

Judge

Matsemela

The application for leave to appeal fails to meet the stringent requirements of section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The urgency of the original application was justified by the appellants' ongoing and anticipated defamatory conduct, which extended beyond the removed media statement. The appellants failed to provide undertakings to cease their conduct and remained unrepentant. The statements made were found to be defamatory, false, and not protected by any defence such as truth or public interest. The court found no material dispute of fact that would preclude final interdictory relief,…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Defamation
• Final Interdict
• Punitive Costs
• Urgency
• Reverse Onus

Motsi v S (A37/22)

Motsi v S (A37/22) [2022] ZAWCHC 151; 2023 (1) SACR 218 (WCC) (15 August 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A37/22

Judge

Thulare

The magistrate's refusal of bail was wrong because the State failed to provide sufficient particulars and reliable evidence to justify continued detention. The bail application was conducted without adequate information regarding the charge, the circumstances of the offence, and the strength of the State's case. The alleged confession was of doubtful admissibility, and the State's case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, which was not sufficiently strong to outweigh the appellant's right to be presumed innocent. The interests of justice permitted the release of the appellant on bail,…

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Reverse Onus
• Admissibility Of Confession
• Gender Based Violence
• Judicial Independence

Oosthuizen and Others v Vorster (1491/2016)

Oosthuizen and Others v Vorster (1491/2016) [2019] ZAECGHC 35 (26 March 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1491/2016

Judge

T Malusi

A landowner was held liable for a veldfire that started after angle grinding in a shed and spread to neighbouring farms. The court found negligence and applied the statutory presumption.

• Negligence
• National Veld And Forest Fire Act
• Causation
• Reverse Onus
• Foreseeability Of Harm
• Delict

Moyo v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others; Sonti v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (387/2017; 386/2017)

Moyo v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others; Sonti v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (387/2017; 386/2017) [2018] ZASCA 100; 2018 (8) BCLR 972 (SCA); [2018] 3 All SA 342 (SCA); 2018 (2) SACR 313 (SCA) (20 June 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

387/2017; 386/2017

Judges

Maya, Wallis, Mbha, Van der Merwe, Makgoka

The majority held that section 1(2) of the Intimidation Act is unconstitutional as it places an evidentiary burden on the accused to disclose the content of their defence before the close of the prosecution's case, thereby infringing the right to a fair trial and the right to remain silent. This limitation is not justified under section 36 of the Constitution. Section 1(2) was declared invalid, with retrospective effect limited to pending trials or appeals. On section 1(1)(b), the majority found it overbroad and incompatible with the right to freedom of expression, as it criminalises conduct…

Source excerpt

• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Reverse Onus
• Freedom Of Expression
• Fair Trial Rights
• Intimidation Act
• Presumption Of Innocence

Ramokgopa v S (Appeal) (A 47/2017)

Ramokgopa v S (Appeal) (A 47/2017) [2018] ZAMPMBHC 5 (26 April 2018)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A 47/2017

Judge

Jansen van Rensburg

Bail appeal dismissed for schedule 6 offences after the court found no exceptional circumstances and no misdirection by the magistrates court.

• Bail Application
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Reverse Onus
• Schedule 6 Offences
• Constitutional Rights
• Judicial Discretion

Cooper v District Magistrate, Cape Town (WCC) (1699/2017)

Cooper v District Magistrate, Cape Town (WCC) (1699/2017) [2017] ZAWCHC 140; 2018 (1) SACR 369 (WCC) (24 November 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16996/2017

Judges

Andrews AJ, Baartman J

The High Court found that the district court proceedings were materially irregular and infringed the applicant's constitutional rights to a fair trial. The applicant was not properly informed of the charge, the nature of the proceedings, or his rights, and was denied a fair opportunity to present his defence and call witnesses. The presiding magistrate misapplied the law by convicting the applicant under section 55 of the Criminal Procedure Act instead of section 170, which was the correct provision given the circumstances. The summary enquiry was conducted in a manner that disregarded the ap…

Source excerpt

• Failure To Appear
• Reverse Onus
• Fair Trial Rights
• Summary Enquiry
• Adjustment Of Fines Act

Moyo and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others; Sonti and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (28532/14; 41487/14)

Moyo and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others; Sonti and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (28532/14; 41487/14) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1077; 2017 (1) SACR 659 (GP) (20 December 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28532/14; 41487/14

Judge

N V Khumalo

The court held that section 1(1)(b) of the Intimidation Act does not unjustifiably infringe the right to freedom of expression, as the conduct and speech targeted by the section fall within the exclusion criteria of section 16(2) of the Constitution, namely incitement to imminent violence. The section is subject to an objective test, requiring that the conduct instill reasonable fear of harm, and is justified in the context of South Africa's high levels of violence and intimidation. Regarding section 1(2), the court found that although the provision imposes a reverse onus on the accused to pr…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Reverse Onus
• Presumption Of Innocence
• Intimidation Act
• Limitation Of Rights
• Fair Trial Rights

Mosele v S (A351/2014)

Mosele v S (A351/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 240 (29 April 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A351/2014

Judges

Tsatsi, Kubushi

The High Court set aside a trespass conviction and sentence, holding that the appellant’s version of permission was reasonably possibly true and mens rea was not proved.

• Trespass Act
• Reverse Onus
• Mens Rea
• Constitutionality Of Statutory Presumptions
• Criminal-law
• Trespass