Esheria South Africa Case Law
Sign in
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
2 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter South Africa case law

Results update automatically as you type.

South Africa decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal Law [2024] ZACC 31

Sithole v S (CCT 118/23)

Sithole v S (CCT 118/23) [2024] ZACC 31; 2025 (1) SACR 349 (CC); 2025 (6) BCLR 693 (CC) (20 December 2024)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 118/23
Judges
Madlanga, Kollapen, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Rogers, Seegobin, Theron, Tolmay, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court materially misdirected itself by imposing a non-parole period without affording the applicant and respondent an opportunity to make submissions and without establishing exceptional circumstances. This violated the requirements of section 276B of the Criminal Procedure Act and the applicant's right to a fair trial. The respondent conceded the error and did not oppose the removal of the non-parole period. The Court found that the applicant's delay in filing was excusable due to his incarceration and the pandemic, and condonation was granted. How…

Source excerpt

  • Non Parole Period
  • Fair Trial Rights
  • Exceptional Circumstances
  • Condonation
  • Section 276b Criminal Procedure Act
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2016] ZACC 27

Jimmale and Another v S (CCT223/15)

Jimmale and Another v S (CCT223/15) [2016] ZACC 27; 2016 (11) BCLR 1389 (CC); 2016 (2) SACR 691 (CC) (30 August 2016)

Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT223/15
Judges
Mogoeng, Moseneke, Bosielo, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that the trial court materially misdirected itself by imposing a non-parole order without establishing exceptional circumstances and without inviting the parties to make submissions. The order exceeded the statutory maximum period and was prejudicial to the applicants, infringing their constitutional rights. Precedent requires that non-parole orders be made only in exceptional circumstances, with a proper evidential basis and after hearing the parties. The respondent conceded the error. Accordingly, the non-parole order was set aside, and the applicants will be e…

Source excerpt

  • Non Parole Order
  • Sentencing Discretion
  • Section 276b Criminal Procedure Act
  • Section 12 Constitution
  • Exceptional Circumstances
  • Fair Trial Rights
Read case analysis
Criminal Law [2013] ZANWHC 90

Moshe and Others v S (CAP 11/13)

Moshe and Others v S (CAP 11/13) [2013] ZANWHC 90 (12 December 2013)

Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Case number
CAP 11/13
Judges
Chwaro, Leeuw

The court found that the convictions on counts 1, 9, and 10 were supported by direct and uncontested evidence, including positive identification of stolen cattle and branding marks, and the appellants' failure to rebut the State's case. The evidence obtained through the undercover operation was admissible under section 252A of the Criminal Procedure Act, as the agent did not go beyond providing an opportunity to commit the offences and there was no challenge to its admissibility. However, the trial court erred in imposing a blanket sentence of 15 years imprisonment on all appellants without p…

Source excerpt

  • Stock Theft
  • Admissibility Of Evidence
  • Undercover Operations
  • Sentencing Principles
  • Section 252a Criminal Procedure Act
  • Section 276b Criminal Procedure Act
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

South Africa decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.