South Africa Case Law

S v Yussif and Others (Special Review) (R69/2024; R70/2024; R71/2024)

S v Yussif and Others (Special Review) (R69/2024; R70/2024; R71/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 77 (25 February 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R69/2024; R70/2024; R71/2024

Judges

Nemavhidi, Chesiwe

When a magistrate becomes permanently unavailable during part-heard criminal proceedings at the pre-conviction stage, those proceedings are rendered a nullity ex lege. The High Court does not have to intervene or issue an order to set aside such proceedings, as the nullity arises automatically by operation of law. The prosecuting authority retains the discretion to reinstitute proceedings de novo before a different magistrate, without requiring permission or direction from the High Court. This approach is supported by established case law and statutory interpretation of the Criminal Procedure…

Source excerpt

• Magistrate Unavailability
• Nullity Of Proceedings
• De Novo Trial
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Special Review

Nyeufane v Minister of Police (1052/2024)

Nyeufane v Minister of Police (1052/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 78 (14 March 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1052/2024

Judges

H J Scholtz, R D Hendricks

The High Court removed a special review from the roll and sent the matter back to the regional court, holding the reference was procedurally incompetent.

• Default Judgment
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Magistrates Court Act
• Special Review
• Procedural Irregularity
• Special-review

S v Nkomo (SH26/2018)

S v Nkomo (SH26/2018) [2024] ZANWHC 69; 2024 (2) SACR 109 (NWM) (11 March 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

SH26/2018

Judges

A H Petersen, A Reddy

High Court special review correcting a magistrate’s sentence so the suspension condition referred to culpable homicide, not murder.

• Culpable Homicide
• Sentencing Correction
• Functus Officio
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Special Review
• Special-review

S v Ntose - Special Review (CA&R121/2023)

S v Ntose - Special Review (CA&R121/2023) [2023] ZAECMKHC 84 (4 August 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA&R121/2023

Judges

N G Beshe, G H Bloem

The High Court remitted a sexual-offence trial for a de novo start, citing uncertainty about in camera proceedings and no record that the intermediary was sworn in.

• Special Review
• Intermediary Testimony
• In Camera Proceedings
• Procedural Irregularity
• Special-review
• Intermediary-testimony

Makotlha v Leolo and Another (02/2022)

Makotlha v Leolo and Another (02/2022) [2022] ZANWHC 32 (14 June 2022)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

02/2022

Judges

Petersen, Djaje

The High Court held that there is no statutory or procedural basis for a Magistrate in a civil matter to refer a judgment or order to the High Court for special review mero motu. The procedure for review of Magistrates' Court proceedings in civil matters is governed by Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court, which requires an application by an affected party. The Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, specifically section 22(1)(c), allows for review on the ground of gross irregularity, but does not empower Magistrates to initiate such reviews. The Magistrate's reliance on the repealed Supreme Court A…

Source excerpt

• Special Review
• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Gross Irregularity
• Superior Courts Act
• Rule 53 Review

S v Essop and Another (94/2020)

S v Essop and Another (94/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 576 (17 June 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

94/2020

Judges

R G Tolmay, H De Vos

Although section 304A of the Criminal Procedure Act is not applicable to accused who are legally represented, the High Court may intervene in the interests of justice where a gross irregularity has occurred. In this case, accused number two was convicted on both the main count and the alternative counts, resulting in an impermissible duplication of convictions. The irregularity is of such a nature that it would inevitably lead to the setting aside of the convictions and sentences if left unaddressed. To avoid unnecessary delay and piecemeal litigation, the High Court set aside the duplicated…

Source excerpt

• Duplication Of Convictions
• Special Review
• Section 304a
• Irregularity In Proceedings
• Admissibility Of Hearsay Evidence

S v Tono (R1/2020)

S v Tono (R1/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 13 (29 January 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R1/2020

Judges

Opperman, Naidoo

On special review, the High Court set aside a guilty conviction entered under a repealed statute and remitted the matter for trial de novo.

• Repeal Of Statute
• Child Care Act
• Children S Act
• Special Review
• Conviction Set Aside
• Special-review

S v Ramahetlane and Others (7/2019 – 24/2019)

S v Ramahetlane and Others (7/2019 – 24/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 19 (7 February 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

7/2019 – 24/2019

Judges

DAFFUE, MUSI

The High Court found that neither the questioning by the magistrate in the first 17 matters nor the admissions made by the accused in the last matter met the requirements established by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi. The court emphasized that the principle of stare decisis applies, and as such, all convictions and sentences must be set aside for failing to comply with the prescribed standards for conviction and sentencing in automatic and special review proceedings under section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act.

Source excerpt

• Automatic Review
• Special Review
• National Road Traffic Act
• Speeding Offences
• Conviction Requirements

S v Ramahetlane and Others (R7/2019 - R24/2019)

S v Ramahetlane and Others (R7/2019 - R24/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 1 (7 February 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R7/2019 - R24/2019

Judges

DAFFUE, MUSI

The court found that the questioning by the magistrate in the first 17 cases and the admissions made by Mr Rautenbach in the last case did not comply with the procedural requirements established by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi. The principle of stare decisis mandates that these requirements be followed. As a result, all convictions and sentences in the reviewed matters were unlawful and must be set aside.

Source excerpt

• Automatic Review
• Special Review
• Speeding Offences
• National Road Traffic Act
• Stare Decisis

Msiya v S (AR654/2017)

Msiya v S (AR654/2017) [2018] ZAKZPHC 41 (31 August 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR654/2017

Judges

Seegobin, Vahed, Bezuidenhout

The High Court set aside convictions entered under s112(1)(a) for serious housebreaking charges, withdrew a prior certification, and ordered the matters retried de novo.

• Special Review
• Housebreaking With Intent To Steal And Theft
• Application Of S112 1 A And B
• Irregularities In Summary Procedure
• Withdrawal Of Review Certificates
• Criminal-review