South Africa Case Law

FSA Transport (Pty) Ltd v Station Commander Cape Town Central Vehicle Crime Investigation Unit South African Police Services and Another (13412/24)

FSA Transport (Pty) Ltd v Station Commander Cape Town Central Vehicle Crime Investigation Unit South African Police Services and Another (13412/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 285 (26 September 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13412/24

Judge

Le Grange

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting enforcement of the order pending appeal. The factual matrix differed from Ngqukumba, as the core issue was whether the police acted unlawfully in seizing the truck, which remains unresolved in the pending petition. The applicant did not establish irreparable harm on a balance of probabilities. Even if relief were granted, the police would have an automatic right of appeal under section 18(4) of the Superior Courts Act, resulting in suspension of the order. The application was therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Enforcement Of Judgments
• Suspension Pending Appeal
• Spoliation Order
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Road Traffic Act
• Police Powers

Magwaza and Another v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023/042442)

Magwaza and Another v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2023/042442) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1222 (24 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/042442

Judge

Vally

The High Court dismissed a spoliation-style application for return of a vehicle, holding the impoundment lawful under the National Road Traffic Act.

• Mandament Van Spolie
• Lawful Dispossession
• Road Traffic Act
• Executor Rights
• Mandament-van-spolie
• Vehicle-impoundment

Prinsloo v Venter and Others (80848/2014)

Prinsloo v Venter and Others (80848/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1057 (10 December 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

80848/2014

Judge

Strauss

The court found that the deceased, through his company, was the registered owner and title holder of the Chevrolet Spark motor vehicle and had the authority to sell it to the applicant. The applicant paid for the vehicle, received the necessary documents, and effected transfer of registration, thereby becoming the legal owner and title holder. The first respondent's right to possession terminated upon cancellation of her agreement with the deceased, and she failed to prove any continuing right to hold the vehicle against the applicant. Regarding the other movable goods, the court found insuff…

Source excerpt

• Rei Vindicatio
• Ownership Of Movable Property
• Constructive Delivery
• Road Traffic Act
• Onus Of Proof
• Termination Of Possession Rights

Masilela v Road Accident Fund (23556/2010)

Masilela v Road Accident Fund (23556/2010) [2015] ZAGPJHC 193 (14 August 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

23556/2010

Judge

E F Dippenaar

The court found that both the plaintiff and the insured driver were negligent. The insured driver, as a professional, failed to take adequate precautions when driving through a crowd of revellers, disregarding the safety of pedestrians and failing to take alternative routes or proactive measures. The plaintiff, meanwhile, failed to keep a proper lookout and did not comply with statutory pedestrian duties, contributing to the collision. The evidence was unsatisfactory and contradictory on both sides, but the probabilities favoured that the accident occurred in the street with the vehicle movin…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Apportionment Of Liability
• Road Traffic Act
• Pedestrian Duties

Mokoena v MEC: Police, Roads and Transport, Free State and Another (3002/2013)

Mokoena v MEC: Police, Roads and Transport, Free State and Another (3002/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 185 (10 November 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3002/2013

Judge

L.B.J. Moeng

The court found the vehicle’s removal and continued retention amounted to an unlawful impoundment, and granted judgment for the plaintiff on the merits.

• Unlawful Impoundment
• Road Traffic Act
• Loss Of Income
• Abuse Of Power
• Unlawful-impoundment
• Road-traffic-law

S v Motlogelwa (HC . 18/2012)

S v Motlogelwa (HC . 18/2012) [2012] ZANWHC 44 (4 December 2012)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC . 18/2012

Judges

A.M. Kgoele, N. Gutta

On special review, the High Court set aside a conviction for driving-related offences because the record did not show whether the accused pleaded guilty to reckless or negligent driving.

• Reckless Driving
• Negligent Driving
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Road Traffic Act
• Conviction Irregularity
• Reckless-driving

S v Maya (CA&R No 300/2012)

S v Maya (CA&R No 300/2012) [2012] ZAECGHC 76 (17 September 2012)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R No 300/2012

Judges

N. Dambuza, P.W. Tshiki

The court found that the sentence imposed by the magistrate, which included both a fine and a wholly suspended term of imprisonment, was incompetent under section 89(5) of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996. The statute prescribes that a person convicted of reckless driving is liable to either a fine or imprisonment, but not both. Previous case law confirms that where the statute omits the phrase 'or both', courts may not impose both forms of punishment. The court set aside the additional portion of the sentence and confirmed that the sentence of R6,000.00 or 4 months imprisonment was a…

Source excerpt

• Reckless Driving
• Sentencing Powers
• Road Traffic Act
• Statutory Interpretation

Zulu v S (189/2011)

Zulu v S (189/2011) [2012] ZAKZPHC 26 (4 May 2012)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

189/2011

Judges

Koen, Mjoli

High Court appeal dismissed in a fatal road accident case; the court upheld convictions, finding the owner-driver presumption unrebutted and the blood sample proved.

• Culpable Homicide
• Reckless Driving
• Road Traffic Act
• Presumption Of Driver Identity
• Blood Alcohol Evidence
• Admissibility Of Evidence

S v Mathetsa (354/05)

S v Mathetsa (354/05) [2009] ZAGPJHC 88 (28 July 2009)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

354/05

Judges

N.P. Willis, F.H.D. Van Oosten

On review, the High Court set aside a conviction and sentence after the court record was lost and could not be reconstructed.

• Road Traffic Act
• Loss Of Court Record
• Review Proceedings
• Setting Aside Conviction
• Criminal-law
• Review-proceedings

S v De Vos (DR710/07)

S v De Vos (DR710/07) [2007] ZAKZHC 29; 2008 (1) SACR 175 (N) (25 October 2007)

Court

High Courts - Kwazulu Natal

Case number

DR710/07

Judges

Patel, Swain

The magistrate exceeded his jurisdiction by imposing a fine of R100,000, as the Magistrates' Courts Act limits fines to R60,000 unless the relevant statute prescribes otherwise. The Road Traffic Act does not specify a maximum fine, so the general limit applies. The conviction is confirmed, but the sentence is set aside and replaced with a fine of R60,000 or three years imprisonment, with one-third suspended for five years on condition of no further contravention of Section 59 during the suspension period. The matter was properly disposed of by special review rather than appeal, as the proceed…

Source excerpt

• Road Traffic Act
• Sentencing Jurisdiction
• Excessive Speed
• Magistrates Court Powers