South Africa Case Law

Sithole and Another v S (AR370/17)

Sithole and Another v S (AR370/17) [2025] ZAKZPHC 68 (20 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR370/17

Judges

Harrison, Mossop

The court found that the confessions of both appellants were inadmissible due to multiple constitutional and procedural violations. The officers who took the confessions were not independent from the investigating team, and the reasons for not securing a magistrate were vague and insufficient. The appellants were not properly afforded their rights to legal representation prior to making statements, and requests for legal consultation were ignored. There was no medical examination to verify allegations of assault, and the process lacked safeguards to ensure voluntariness and reliability. The a…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Legal Representation
• Self Incrimination
• Fair Trial Rights
• Voluntariness Of Statements

Ngcobo v S (AR 247/24)

Ngcobo v S (AR 247/24) [2025] ZAKZPHC 55 (12 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 247/24

Judges

Harrison, Radebe, P Bezuidenhout

The court found that the appellant's confession was inadmissible because the police were aware that he had legal representation and failed to allow him to consult with his attorney prior to making the statement. The evidence of the attorney, Mr Manzini, that he was to be present for any statement was never challenged or rejected. The conviction was based solely on the confession, and the absence of proper consultation constituted a material breach of the appellant's constitutional rights under section 35 of the Constitution. The admission of the confession rendered the trial unfair and was de…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Legal Representation
• Section 35 Constitution
• Fair Trial Rights
• Exclusion Of Evidence
• Trial Within A Trial

Ndlovu v S (Reasons) (AR 145/2024)

Ndlovu v S (Reasons) (AR 145/2024) [2025] ZAKZPHC 27; 2025 (1) SACR 506 (KZP) (7 March 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 145/2024

Judges

Olsen, Chili

The High Court upheld an appeal against murder conviction and life sentence after finding the confession was obtained in violation of constitutional rights.

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Legal Representation
• Fair Trial Rights
• Exclusion Of Unconstitutionally Obtained Evidence
• Admissibility-of-confessions
• Right-to-legal-representation

S v Mkhize (Special Review) (RC552/2024; 15/2024)

S v Mkhize (Special Review) (RC552/2024; 15/2024) [2024] ZAKZPHC 123 (23 December 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

RC552/2024

Judges

Mossop, E Bezuidenhout

The court found that Mr Mkhize was represented at his criminal trial by Mr Kwela, who was suspended from practice and thus not entitled to appear. This constituted a gross irregularity of such fundamental nature that it nullified the entire trial proceedings. The irregularity was not disclosed to either the accused or the magistrate, amounting to deception and undermining the administration of justice. The right to legal representation is constitutionally protected, but only by practitioners in good standing. The court held that public interest and the dictates of justice require the convicti…

Source excerpt

• Right To Legal Representation
• Irregularity In Trial
• Suspended Legal Practitioner
• Nullification Of Proceedings

Director Public Prosecutions Limpopo Division v Grobler and Others (CC01/2024)

Director Public Prosecutions Limpopo Division v Grobler and Others (CC01/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 204; 2025 (1) SACR 357 (LP) (13 December 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

CC01/2024

Judge

E M Makgoba

The court dismissed an application to bar an attorney from representing accused persons in a criminal trial, finding no proper basis to treat him as a compellable State witness.

• Conflict Of Interest
• Legal Professional Privilege
• Right To Legal Representation
• Section 35 Constitution
• Section 201 Criminal Procedure Act
• Criminal-procedure

S v Cossa (Review) (REV167/2024)

S v Cossa (Review) (REV167/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 197; 2025 (1) SACR 400 (LP) (4 December 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

REV167/2024

Judges

G.C Muller, M.F Kganyago

Automatic review of an immigration conviction was upheld in part on procedure: the conviction and six-month sentence were set aside for unfair-trial irregularities.

• Immigration Act Offences
• Right To Legal Representation
• Fair Trial Rights
• Self Incrimination
• Bail Procedure
• Criminal-review

S v Mazaleni (E1223/23)

S v Mazaleni (E1223/23) [2024] ZAECBHC 18 (22 July 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

E1223/23

Judges

I.T Stretch, M. Lowe

The High Court set aside criminal proceedings because the accused was represented by an attorney who lacked a valid fidelity fund certificate.

• Right To Legal Representation
• Fidelity Fund Certificate
• Irregularity In Proceedings
• Fidelity-fund-certificate
• Criminal-review
• Right-to-legal-representation

S v Mavuso (HC09/2024)

S v Mavuso (HC09/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 268 (7 June 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC09/2024

Judges

Dibetso-Bodibe, AH Petersen

High Court review set aside an undefended accused’s theft conviction and sentence after finding multiple procedural irregularities in plea, mitigation, and firearm proceedings.

• Right To Legal Representation
• Fair Trial
• Plea Proceedings
• Sentencing Irregularity
• Firearms Control Act
• Review Proceedings

Makau v S (CA&R 02/2024)

Makau v S (CA&R 02/2024) [2024] ZAECMHC 56 (4 June 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CA&R 02/2024

Judges

Hinana, Makaula

The magistrate committed serious misdirections by failing to properly inform the appellant of his right to legal representation, not affording him adequate opportunity to secure counsel, and admitting exhibits without proper procedure. The magistrate's conduct, including direct communication with one legal representative in the absence of the other, undermined the fairness of the trial. The State's concession that the trial was unfair and the sentence harsh was correct. The cumulative effect of these misdirections resulted in a violation of the appellant's constitutional rights, rendering the…

Source excerpt

• Right To Legal Representation
• Fair Trial
• Section 35 Constitution
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Unrepresented Accused

Mokhele v Minister of Defence and Others (4228/2021)

Mokhele v Minister of Defence and Others (4228/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 159 (24 May 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4228/2021

Judges

Chesiwe, Groenewald

The High Court granted condonation and reviewed aside a military appeal decision, finding the applicant’s hearing was procedurally unfair and remitted the matter.

• Procedural Fairness
• Condonation
• Right To Legal Representation
• Automatic Review
• Military Justice
• Procedural-fairness