South Africa Case Law

Sithole and Another v S (AR370/17)

Sithole and Another v S (AR370/17) [2025] ZAKZPHC 68 (20 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR370/17

Judges

Harrison, Mossop

The court found that the confessions of both appellants were inadmissible due to multiple constitutional and procedural violations. The officers who took the confessions were not independent from the investigating team, and the reasons for not securing a magistrate were vague and insufficient. The appellants were not properly afforded their rights to legal representation prior to making statements, and requests for legal consultation were ignored. There was no medical examination to verify allegations of assault, and the process lacked safeguards to ensure voluntariness and reliability. The a…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Legal Representation
• Self Incrimination
• Fair Trial Rights
• Voluntariness Of Statements

S v Cossa (Review) (REV167/2024)

S v Cossa (Review) (REV167/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 197; 2025 (1) SACR 400 (LP) (4 December 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

REV167/2024

Judges

G.C Muller, M.F Kganyago

Automatic review of an immigration conviction was upheld in part on procedure: the conviction and six-month sentence were set aside for unfair-trial irregularities.

• Immigration Act Offences
• Right To Legal Representation
• Fair Trial Rights
• Self Incrimination
• Bail Procedure
• Criminal-review

S v Nthai (SS33/2022)

S v Nthai (SS33/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1091 (24 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS33/2022

Judge

Dosio

In a trial-within-a-trial, the High Court held that a founding affidavit handed over by the accused was voluntary, relevant, and admissible in the criminal case.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Voluntariness
• Self Incrimination
• Warning Statement
• Extra Curial Statement
• Admissibility-of-evidence

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018)

S v Lenting and Others (CC08/2018) [2024] ZAWCHC 220; 2024 (2) SACR 525 (WCC) (22 August 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC08/2018

Judge

Lekhuleni

The court held that section 60(11B)(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act imposes a mandatory duty on the bail court to warn an accused who elects to testify that anything said may be used against him at trial and become admissible in subsequent proceedings. This duty cannot be delegated to legal representatives. In the present case, neither accused 3 nor accused 14 were warned of these rights during their bail applications. For accused 3, the court found that his gang membership was already admitted in the trial and the admission of the bail record would not render his trial unfair. For accused 1…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Bail Testimony
• Self Incrimination
• Fair Trial Rights
• Child Justice Act
• Gang Membership Evidence

Talksure Trading (Pty) Ltd v Naidoo and Another (D4630/2021)

Talksure Trading (Pty) Ltd v Naidoo and Another (D4630/2021) [2023] ZAKZDHC 50 (28 July 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D4630/2021

Judge

Henriques

The court found that the first defendant's plea amounted to a bare denial and failed to disclose any bona fide defence to the plaintiff's claim for a liquidated amount based on a fraudulent scheme. The procedural objections raised regarding the plaintiff's affidavit were condonable and did not affect the substance of the application. The first defendant's assertion that her right to remain silent was infringed by the summary judgment proceedings was rejected, as there was no element of state compulsion and she had not sought a stay of proceedings. The authorities confirm that the right to rem…

Source excerpt

• Summary Judgment
• Self Incrimination
• Fraudulent Misappropriation
• Liquidated Claim
• Right To Remain Silent

Ramthlakgwe v Modimolle-Mookgopong Local Municipality and Another (JS562/23)

Ramthlakgwe v Modimolle-Mookgopong Local Municipality and Another (JS562/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 190; (2023) 44 ILJ 2297 (LC) (15 June 2023)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JS562/23

Judge

M Jolwana

The court held that the applicant's constitutional rights to silence and a fair trial are not compromised by the employer proceeding with a disciplinary hearing, even where criminal charges have been laid. The disciplinary process and criminal proceedings are distinct, with different standards of proof and admissibility of evidence. The applicant is not compelled to testify at the disciplinary hearing and must choose whether to defend himself or remain silent. The mere existence of criminal charges does not entitle the applicant to a postponement or withdrawal of disciplinary proceedings. The…

Source excerpt

• Disciplinary Hearing
• Constitutional Right To Silence
• Abuse Of Process
• Fair Labour Practices
• Self Incrimination

MTN (Pty) Ltd v Madzonga and Others (19139/14)

MTN (Pty) Ltd v Madzonga and Others (19139/14) [2023] ZAGPJHC 188; 2023 (5) SA 548 (GJ) (7 March 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19139/14

Judge

S D J Wilson

The court held that section 35(3)(j) of the Constitution entrenches the right against self-incrimination for accused persons, which includes the right not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence. The text of the Constitution is not restricted to testimonial utterances and, when interpreted generously and purposively, extends to the compelled disclosure of documents in civil proceedings where parallel criminal proceedings are pending. The absence of statutory limitation on this right in the context of civil discovery means that a party may validly object to discovery if the materia…

Source excerpt

• Self Incrimination
• Discovery Procedure
• Section 35 Rights
• Parallel Criminal Proceedings

Mokhesi and Others v S (45/2021)

Mokhesi and Others v S (45/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 58; 2022 (2) SACR 326 (FB) (28 March 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

45/2021

Judge

Naidoo

The High Court dismissed pre-trial applications to quash charges, stay prosecution, or exclude State Capture Commission evidence as premature.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Preliminary Litigation
• Self Incrimination
• Regulation 8 State Capture Commission
• Section 27 Precca
• Declaratory Relief

SAMWU obo Makibinyane and Others v SA Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR1043/18)

SAMWU obo Makibinyane and Others v SA Local Government Bargaining Council and Others (JR1043/18) [2021] ZALCJHB 15 (8 February 2021)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1043/18

Judge

T Deane

The Labour Court dismissed SAMWU’s application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no compelling reason to grant leave.

• Leave To Appeal
• Derivative Misconduct
• Unlawful Instruction
• Self Incrimination
• Condonation
• Disciplinary Procedure

Bushiri v Minister of home Affairs and Others (43470/2020)

Bushiri v Minister of home Affairs and Others (43470/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 585 (21 October 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

43470/2020

Judge

Neukircher

The court found that the applicant and his wife, as accused persons, are entitled to constitutional protection against self-incrimination and the right to silence. Compelling them to make representations to the Department of Home Affairs prior to pleading in their criminal trial would violate these rights, as such representations could be used against them in the pending criminal proceedings. The balance of convenience favours the applicant, as withdrawal of their permanent residence permits could result in their bail being revoked and render them illegal foreigners, causing irreparable harm.…

Source excerpt

• Right To Silence
• Self Incrimination
• Interim Interdict
• Immigration Permits
• Fair Trial Rights