Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Nokhokhoba and Another v S (Leave to Appeal) (CC28/2024) [2025] ZAECMHC 50 (3 June 2025)
The High Court refused leave to appeal against convictions for serious violent offences, finding no reasonable prospects of success under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
Mapisa-Nqakula v S (CC33/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 371 (4 April 2025)
The court held that the applicant failed to establish prima facie facts indicating the relevance of the 'C' section of the police docket to her fair trial rights. The applicant's arguments regarding the sequence of statements, hearsay, and lack of corroboration are matters for trial and do not justify disclosure at this stage. The respondent's refusal to disclose is supported by privilege, confidentiality, and lack of relevance. Regarding the military docket, the court found that ongoing representations and investigations preclude disclosure, but ordered the respondent to provide a progress r…
Source excerpt
Mawanda Makhala and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape (CCT 237/22) [2024] ZACC 28; 2025 (1) SACR 275 (CC); 2025 (4) BCLR 399 (CC) (20 December 2024)
The Constitutional Court held that recanted section 204 statements could not sustain the convictions without sufficient corroboration and set them aside.
Randell v S (A32/2022) [2024] ZAMPMHC 51 (19 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a corruption conviction, holding that the trial court properly treated accomplice evidence and that the State proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Swanepoel and Another v S (23004/2021) [2021] ZAGPPHC 432; 2021 (2) SACR 374 (GP) (19 April 2021)
The court held that the applicants were never formally called as section 204 witnesses and did not testify in court against their co-accused, Van Zyl, who died before trial. Therefore, the statutory conditions for indemnity under section 204 were not met. The alleged agreement or legitimate expectation did not create a binding contract or confer immunity from prosecution. The State, as dominus litis, retained the discretion to proceed with charges, and its decision was neither unconstitutional nor procedurally unfair. The applicants' constitutional rights were not infringed, as they were not…
Source excerpt
S v Makhala and Others (SS06/2019) [2019] ZAWCHC 182 (11 December 2019)
The court found that the statements made by Luzuko Makhala to the police were admissible as hearsay evidence under Section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, as they were made freely and voluntarily, corroborated by objective and circumstantial evidence, and their admission was in the interests of justice. The court rejected the accused's version as improbable and unconvincing, noting inconsistencies and suspicious conduct, including attempts to mislead police and evade arrest. The identification of accused 3 by the deceased's family, corroborated by cell phone and circumstantial e…
Source excerpt
Miya and Others v S (SS163/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 148; [2017] 3 All SA 906 (GJ); 2017 (2) SACR 461 (GJ) (7 June 2017)
The court held that Section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act must be interpreted according to its plain language, which does not distinguish between accused and witnesses. The phrase 'in any subsequent proceedings' is broad and not limited to the trial of the accused in the bail matter. Since Mr Grigorov was not warned in the Sandton bail proceedings, his affidavit from those proceedings cannot be used against him in any subsequent proceedings, including the present case where he appears as a Section 204 witness. The protection afforded by Section 60(11B)(c) extends to Mr Grigorov in…
Source excerpt
Loate v S (A561/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 132 (9 March 2017)
The High Court upheld an appeal against a fraud conviction, finding the State failed to prove the appellant instructed a witness to falsify death-registration documents.
Ramyonyane and Another v S (AR253/15) [2016] ZAKZPHC 56 (28 June 2016)
The appeal against murder and robbery convictions succeeded after the court found the confessions, pointing-out, and Section 204 evidence were coerced and inadmissible.
S v Maasdorp (CA&R 83/07) [2008] ZANCHC 21; 2008 (2) SACR 296 (NC) (4 April 2008)
The court found that the trial magistrate erred in relying on the evidence of Selao, a section 204 witness, who was unreliable and dishonest. The chain introduced as Exhibit 1 was not properly identified by the victim and was admitted into evidence in a procedurally improper manner. The magistrate's conduct in actively descending into the arena and influencing the proceedings compromised the fairness of the trial. Furthermore, the adverse inference drawn against the appellant for exercising his constitutional right to remain silent was impermissible. Regarding accused 2, the confession was no…
Source excerpt
Explore more
