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
Han v First National Bank Ltd and Others (14048/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 435 (7 May 2025)
The High Court separated one plaintiff’s claim from a consolidated damages action after finding her case sufficiently distinct and burdened by delays.
Mogaecho v S (A47/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 120 (24 April 2025)
The appeal succeeded because the separation of trials was granted without disclosure of grounds, resulting in prejudice to the appellant. The trial court failed to exercise its discretion judicially, as the appellant was convicted on the basis of common purpose using evidence against co-accused who were no longer present to refute it. Furthermore, the incomplete and reconstructed record, done without the appellant's input, violated his constitutional right to a fair trial and appeal. The charge sheet was found to be legally defective, and the sentence was imposed without proper consideration…
Source excerpt
Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division v Matsepe and Others (CC11/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 20; 2025 (2) SACR 86 (GP) (6 January 2025)
The court held that section 319(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires that questions of law must arise 'on the trial', which is interpreted to mean after arraignment and plea. In this matter, no plea had been entered and the separation order under section 157 of the CPA was interlocutory, not final or definitive, and thus not appealable. The applicant failed to comply with the strict procedural requirements for reservation of questions of law, including proper framing and factual foundation. The authorities cited by the applicant did not support the proposition that section 319(1) is avai…
Source excerpt
Mkhize v Director of Public Prosecutions KwaZulu-Natal (CCD38/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 89; 2025 (1) SACR 392 (KZD) (9 December 2024)
The application for separation of trials is premature because section 157(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act only empowers the trial court to order separation during the trial, after the accused have pleaded. The indictment remains under the control of the prosecuting authority until the trial commences, and any intervention by the court before this point is limited to specific statutory grounds. The amended indictment further strengthens the connection between the applicant and the principal accused, making separation impractical and contrary to legal policy. Judicial discretion regarding sepa…
Source excerpt
Mtatsi and Another v S (A120/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1038 (7 October 2024)
The trial court committed a gross misdirection by refusing the application for separation of trials after Accused 2 pleaded guilty to count 3 and exonerated the appellants. The continuation of the trial against the appellants on count 3, and their subsequent conviction, was prejudicial and violated their right to a fair trial. Furthermore, the evidence led by the state was riddled with material contradictions and inconsistencies regarding the identity of the assailants and the actions attributed to each accused. The complainants' testimony was unreliable, and the police evidence did not corro…
Source excerpt
Matsepe and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (CC11/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 893 (6 September 2024)
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
Ncitha and Others v S In re: S v Mkolo and Others (CC 40/21) [2022] ZAECBHC 12 (10 May 2022)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice arising from the delays, especially as many delays were self-imposed or mutually benefitted both sides. The charges involve common purpose and racketeering, making joint trial the default and in the interests of justice. Separation would result in duplication of evidence and waste of resources. The applicants' history of delays undermined their claim to prejudice. The court exercised its discretion to refuse separation, finding that the interests of justice and society outweigh the inconvenience and prejudice alle…
Source excerpt
Msiza v S (CC11/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 216 (23 March 2022)
The court held that the order refusing separation of trials is interlocutory and not appealable at this stage, as appeals in criminal matters are regulated by the Criminal Procedure Act, which only allows appeals after conviction and sentence. The applicant's argument that his constitutional right to legal representation of choice is infringed was rejected, as Legal Aid South Africa may provide representation if he becomes indigent, but does not guarantee retention of private counsel. The court found no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for granting leave to appeal, and no…
Source excerpt
Fanoe and Another v S (CC 40/21) [2022] ZAECELLC 8; 2022 (2) SACR 166 (ECMk) (28 February 2022)
The court found that the applicants were charged only with offences relating to proceeds of unlawful activities and money laundering, without any allegation of common purpose or involvement in the broader fraudulent scheme attributed to other accused. The evidence against the applicants was largely circumstantial and limited to their business dealings with Victory Ticket 750 CC. The applicants admitted the factual basis of the transactions but denied knowledge of any unlawful origin of the funds. The court held that requiring the applicants to sit through a lengthy joint trial, where most evi…
Source excerpt
Raves v Director of Public Prosecutions, Western Cape and Another (A150/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 11; 2021 (2) SACR 140 (WCC) (3 February 2021)
The court held that the indictment sufficiently disclosed offences under POCA for which the appellant could be charged and convicted. The appellant's association with the enterprise, through repeated acquisition of stolen firearms from FLASH, constituted a pattern of racketeering activity as defined in POCA, regardless of his lack of direct connection to Accused No.1. The delays in prosecution, while regrettable, did not amount to irreparable trial prejudice warranting a permanent stay, as the appellant was not uniquely prejudiced and the delays were largely attributable to circumstances beyo…
Source excerpt
Explore more
