South Africa Case Law

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

Pelser v Minister of Police (1296/2018)

Pelser v Minister of Police (1296/2018) [2025] ZANWHC 67 (4 April 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1296/2018

Judge

S Mfenyana

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs after the court found no reasonable prospect of success and rejected the applicant’s legal and factual grounds.

• Leave To Appeal
• Arrest And Detention
• Section 50 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 35 Constitution
• Leave-to-appeal
• Arrest-and-detention

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

Matsepe and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (CC11/2021)

Matsepe and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (CC11/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 893 (6 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC11/2021

Judge

PM Mabuse

The court found that granting a temporary stay of prosecution would result in unreasonable delay and violate the fair trial rights of the Respondents, who have consistently been ready to proceed. The Applicants' repeated applications and appeals have caused postponements that prejudiced the co-accused and the State. The right to a fair trial under section 35(3)(d) of the Constitution applies to all parties, not just the Applicants. The court held that the interests of justice require separation of trials to allow the Respondents to proceed without further delay, while the Applicants pursue th…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Separation Of Trials
• Unreasonable Delay
• Section 157 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 35 Constitution
• Temporary Stay Of Prosecution

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

Mokone and Another v S (A15/2022)

Mokone and Another v S (A15/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 418; 2024 (2) SACR 175 (GP) (6 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A15/2022

Judges

S. Potterill, N. Davis, D. Mahosi

The court found that a conflict of interest arose when both appellants were represented by the same legal practitioner, and appellant 1 implicated appellant 2 in his testimony. This conflict rendered appellant 2's representation illusory, as his version was not put to the state witness or to appellant 1, and basic steps such as cross-examination were not taken. The irregularity resulted in a failure of justice and an unfair trial for appellant 2, requiring his convictions and sentences to be set aside. The conflict did not materially prejudice appellant 1, as his version was put to the state…

Source excerpt

• Conflict Of Interest
• Legal Representation
• Fair Trial Rights
• Rape
• Section 35 Constitution
• Section 322 Criminal Procedure Act

S v Gulekane (HC 04/23)

S v Gulekane (HC 04/23) [2023] ZANWHC 206 (14 November 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC 04/23

Judges

Reddy, Djaje

The withdrawal of the charge of malicious injury to property (count 2) by the prosecution after the accused had pleaded was a gross irregularity, as section 6(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act only permits stopping the prosecution after plea, which entitles the accused to acquittal. The accused was entitled to a verdict on that charge. Additionally, the procedure adopted by Magistrate Jacobs in calling on the accused to plead before proper disclosure and consultation with his legal representative violated the accused's constitutional rights to a fair trial under section 35(3)(a) and (b) of the…

Source excerpt

• Withdrawal Of Charge
• Fair Trial Rights
• Gross Irregularity
• Section 6 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 35 Constitution

S v Zikhali (Trial within a Trial) (CC15/23)

S v Zikhali (Trial within a Trial) (CC15/23) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1844 (3 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC15/23

Judge

Cox

The court found that although the accused's general constitutional rights were explained to him, he was not specifically warned that he was not obliged to make a pointing out nor informed of the evidentiary consequences thereof. The officer conducting the pointing out, Col Scheepers, admitted to omitting these warnings. The court held that this omission constituted a material infringement of the accused's constitutional and fair trial rights. The evidence established that the accused was not assaulted or threatened by the officers present, but the failure to properly explain his rights in rel…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Pointing Out
• Section 35 Constitution
• Voluntariness Of Admissions

Ndlovu v S (268/2022)

Ndlovu v S (268/2022) [2023] ZAMPMHC 24; 2023 (2) SACR 358 (ML) (14 July 2023)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

268/2022

Judge

Legodi JP

The High Court dismissed an application for a permanent stay of rape proceedings, finding the delay was largely caused by the applicant and that trial should continue.

• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Unreasonable Delay
• Fair Trial Rights
• Recusal Of Judicial Officer
• Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 35 Constitution

S v Lehaba and Another

S v Lehaba and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 339; A59/2019 (25 May 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A59/2019

Judges

Sethusha-Shongwe, Tolmay

The court found that the trial record was incomplete and that the reconstruction procedure was not properly followed. Crucial and material parts of the evidence in chief and cross-examination were missing, which encroached upon the appellants' right to a fair hearing on appeal. The discrepancies and omissions in the record were vital and fatal to the proper adjudication of the appeal. Referring the matter back for further reconstruction would be futile, as the magistrate's notes were lost, the prosecutor's notes were unavailable, and the prosecutor had resigned. The only remedy to protect the…

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Record Reconstruction
• Appeal Procedure
• Conviction And Sentence
• Section 35 Constitution