South Africa Case Law

S v Thabethe and Others (Appeal) (08/2022)

S v Thabethe and Others (Appeal) (08/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 306 (3 August 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

08/2022

Judge

Gusha

The court held that the questions sought to be reserved by the State were, in substance, questions of fact disguised as questions of law. Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires strict compliance, including clear factual findings and accurate framing of the legal point. The applicant failed to identify proven facts upon which the legal questions hinged, instead rehashing evidence in chief without accounting for cross-examination or the trial court's factual findings. The court found that the application was filed within a reasonable time but that none of the questions raised met th…

Source excerpt

• Section 319 Reservation Of Law
• Section 174 Discharge
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Best Evidence Rule
• Common Purpose
• Section 204 Indemnity

Piedt and Anders v S (SS60/2008)

Piedt and Anders v S (SS60/2008) [2010] ZAWCHC 109 (18 February 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

SS60/2008

Judge

Dlodlo R

The court applied section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act and granted indemnity to Caroline May, but refused indemnity to Ivan Sefoor.

• Section 204 Indemnity
• Accomplice Testimony
• Self Incrimination
• Murder
• Witness Credibility
• Criminal-law