South Africa Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

South Africa Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page: 7 court collections
Last checked: 11 Oct 2026, 09:39 UTC

Results update automatically as you type.

Judge

Topic

Legal area

Court

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters

2 Jul 2025

Criminal Law [2025] ZAMPMBHC 67

S v Tshabalala (Leave to Appeal) (R12/2024)

S v Tshabalala (Leave to Appeal) (R12/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 67 (2 July 2025)

Court: Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Case number: R12/2024
Judge: M R Moleleki

The court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any unusual circumstances that would justify granting leave to appeal against the remittal order. The general rule, supported by both statutory and case law, is that appeals should not be entertained before the conclusion of criminal trials except in exceptional cases. The alleged irregularities, including the interaction between the Acting Regional Magistrate and the complainant, did not amount to a failure of justice or warrant appellate intervention at this stage. The interests of justice require the finalization of the criminal trial…

Source excerpt

Leave To Appeal
Review Of Criminal Proceedings
Irregularity In Trial
Remittal Order
Section 304a Review

Read case analysis

8 Apr 2021

Criminal Law [2021] ZAGPJHC 115

Nabolisa v Learned Magistrate Ms Syta Prinsloo and Another (12249/2018)

Nabolisa v Learned Magistrate Ms Syta Prinsloo and Another (12249/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 115 (8 April 2021)

Court: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number: 12249/2018
Judges: TP Bokako, S Yacoob

The court found that the applicant's failure to request further particulars or challenge the forensic evidence during trial was a result of his own and his legal team's strategy, and cannot be remedied by review. The non-disclosure of working papers did not amount to a gross irregularity, as the applicant was provided with the docket and had opportunities to challenge the evidence. The conviction was for dealing in drugs, not a non-existing offence, and did not rely on an unconstitutional presumption. The conduct of the state's counsel, while robust, did not render the proceedings unfair. Mos…

Source excerpt

Review Of Criminal Proceedings
Fair Trial Rights
Disclosure Of Evidence
Onus In Criminal Trials
Drug Offences
Sentencing Irregularities

Read case analysis

7 Aug 2020

Criminal Law [2020] ZANCHC 60

Sibiya and Another v Magistrate for the Regional Division of Northern Cape, Mr Viewe NO and Another (301/2019)

Sibiya and Another v Magistrate for the Regional Division of Northern Cape, Mr Viewe NO and Another (301/2019) [2020] ZANCHC 60 (7 August 2020)

Court: Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Case number: 301/2019
Judges: Mamosebo, Chwaro

The court found that the applicants failed to provide substantiating facts to support their allegations regarding the prosecutor's knowledge and conduct. The factual disputes were correctly resolved in favour of the respondents using the Plascon-Evans test, and there was no need to refer the matter to oral evidence. The applicants did not establish exceptional circumstances warranting intervention in an incomplete criminal trial, nor did they demonstrate a compelling reason under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act. The costs order was justified, as the litigation did not genuinel…

Source excerpt

Leave To Appeal
Review Of Criminal Proceedings
Fair Trial Rights
Costs In Constitutional Litigation

Read case analysis

28 Feb 2020

Criminal Law [2020] ZANCHC 5

Sibiya and Another v Magistrate for the Regional Division of Northern Cape and Another (301/2019)

Sibiya and Another v Magistrate for the Regional Division of Northern Cape and Another (301/2019) [2020] ZANCHC 5 (28 February 2020)

Court: Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Case number: 301/2019
Judges: Mamosebo, Chwaro

The court found that the applicants failed to provide credible evidence that the prosecutor deliberately withheld the standing order to mislead them or compromise their fair trial rights. The prosecutor only became aware of the standing order during witness consultations and disclosed it to the applicants' attorney immediately upon receipt. The applicants' allegations of trial by ambush were not supported by the record, and the rulings made by the first respondent did not confirm such conduct. The court applied the Plascon Evans rule, accepting the respondent's version as not improbable. Furt…

Source excerpt

Review Of Criminal Proceedings
Gross Irregularity
Fair Trial Rights
Disclosure By Prosecutor
Withdrawal Of Admissions

Read case analysis

14 Jun 2018

Criminal Law [2018] ZAGPJHC 721

Vermaak v Magistrate Page and Another (45121/14)

Vermaak v Magistrate Page and Another (45121/14) [2018] ZAGPJHC 721 (14 June 2018)

Court: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number: 45121/14
Judges: Windell, Vally

The court found that the magistrate did not commit any gross irregularity by rejecting the applicant's version in her section 220 statement where it contradicted the accepted evidence of the complainant and Shaun. Section 220 admissions do not bind the court to the accused's version if it is inconsistent with other evidence. During sentencing, the magistrate exercised proper discretion in refusing to revisit the merits, as the applicant had elected not to testify during trial and the court was bound by its factual findings. The alleged bias was unfounded, as the magistrate's comments were mis…

Source excerpt

Review Of Criminal Proceedings
Gross Irregularity
Admissions In Criminal Trial
Mitigation Of Sentence
Bias Of Judicial Officer
Attempted Murder

Read case analysis

29 Sept 2016

Criminal Law [2016] ZASCA 137

Van Heerden v Regional Court Magistrate, Paarl and Others (883/2015)

Van Heerden v Regional Court Magistrate, Paarl and Others (883/2015) [2016] ZASCA 137 (29 September 2016)

Court: Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number: 883/2015
Judges: Lewis, Tshiqi, Zondi, Van Der Merwe, Makgoka

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to establish on the papers that an informal plea agreement existed between his legal team and the State. The factual disputes between the parties could not be resolved on the affidavits, and the State's version was not so implausible or far-fetched as to be rejected without oral evidence. The appellant's counsel did not object or invoke s 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act when the prosecutor argued for a custodial sentence, nor did he inform the magistrate of any alleged agreement. The appellant's decision to plead guilty was an infor…

Source excerpt

Plea Bargaining
Review Of Criminal Proceedings
Fair Trial Rights
Minimum Sentences
Motion Proceedings
Quasi Mutual Assent

Read case analysis

13 May 2015

Criminal Law [2015] ZAGPPHC 553

S v Ajose (14/295/2013)

S v Ajose (14/295/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 553 (13 May 2015)

Court: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number: 14/295/2013
Judges: N Janse van Nieuwenhuizen, De Vos

The High Court reviewed criminal proceedings from the Pretoria Regional Court, set them aside, and ordered the matter to start de novo before another magistrate.

Review Of Criminal Proceedings
Remittal To Lower Court
Setting Aside Proceedings
Criminal-law
Judicial-review
Setting-aside-proceedings

Read case analysis

12 Jun 2014

Criminal Law [2014] ZAFSHC 82

De Villiers v S and Another (904/2006)

De Villiers v S and Another (904/2006) [2014] ZAFSHC 82 (12 June 2014)

Court: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number: 904/2006
Judges: C. Reinders, S. Ebrahim

High Court review of a guilty plea conviction for theft failed. The court held the plea was voluntary, the 18-month delay was unreasonable, and review was inappropriate.