South Africa Case Law

Thomas v Balepile (61/2021; CA&R 68/23)

Thomas v Balepile (61/2021; CA&R 68/23) [2024] ZANCHC 4 (26 January 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 68/23

Judge

Nxumalo

The Maintenance Act expressly prescribes a special remedy for persons against whom default orders have been made, namely, an application to the Maintenance Court for variation or setting aside of such orders under Section 18. The intention of the Legislature, as determined by the language and scope of the Act, is to confine parties seeking to impugn a default order to this statutory remedy. The special review procedure is not appropriate where the Act provides a specific remedy. The absence of records and the circumstances of the granting of the order do not justify bypassing the statutory pr…

Source excerpt

• Maintenance Act Section 18
• Default Orders
• Special Review Procedure

S v Sithole and Others (R33/2018)

S v Sithole and Others (R33/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 38 (15 March 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R33/2018

Judges

P. J. Loubser, C. Reinders

The High Court set aside guilty plea convictions entered under repealed mining legislation and remitted the matter for fresh pleas under the correct Act.

• Unlawful Possession Of Precious Metals
• Repeal Of Statute
• Special Review Procedure
• Conviction Under Wrong Legislation
• Criminal-law
• Special-review

S v Ubisi and Another (A175/15)

S v Ubisi and Another (A175/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 131 (13 March 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A175/15

Judges

Tuchten, M Ismail

On special review, the court set aside incompetent custodial sentences imposed after guilty pleas under s 112(1)(a), substituted caution and reprimand, and ordered immediate deportation.

• Immigration Act Offence
• Sentencing Error
• Deportation Order
• Special Review Procedure
• Special-review
• Sentencing-error

S v Skhosana and Others (41/2193/2008)

S v Skhosana and Others (41/2193/2008) [2014] ZAGPJHC 223; 2015 (1) SACR 526 (GJ) (18 September 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

41/2193/2008

Judges

Victor, Satchwell

The High Court held that post-conviction matters may proceed to sentence before another magistrate, while pre-conviction part-heard trials become nullities and restart de novo.

• Criminal Trial Nullity
• Magistrate Incapacity
• Sentence By Another Magistrate
• Fair Trial Delay
• Special Review Procedure
• Criminal-trial-nullity

S v Swartz (86/2013)

S v Swartz (86/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 93 (13 June 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

86/2013

Judges

L.J. Lekale, A. Kruger

Special review of a speeding matter: the High Court set aside confirmation of an admission of guilt fine because the required section 35 enquiry was not held.

• Admission Of Guilt Fine
• Mandatory Licence Suspension
• National Road Traffic Act
• Special Review Procedure
• Admission-of-guilt-fine
• Mandatory-licence-suspension

S v Elshazly (535/2008)

S v Elshazly (535/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 114 (25 September 2008)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

535/2008

Judges

B. C. Mocumie, M. H. Rampai

High Court special review of an Immigration Act conviction. The conviction was confirmed, but the magistrate’s sentence was set aside and replaced with a lawful sentence.

• Immigration Act Offences
• Sentencing Incompetence
• Special Review Procedure
• Immigration-act-offences
• Sentencing-incompetence
• Special-review-procedure

S v Engelbrecht and Others (B1054/04)

S v Engelbrecht and Others (B1054/04) [2005] ZAWCHC 11; 2005 (2) SACR 383 (C) (28 January 2005)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

B1054/04

Judges

Fourie, Dlodlo, Hlophe

The High Court held that the matter was not reviewable under section 304A of the Criminal Procedure Act, as no conviction had taken place. Nor was it reviewable under sections 302(1) or 304(4), as the accused had not been convicted or sentenced. The court found that its inherent jurisdiction to intervene before conviction should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances where grave injustice would result, which was not the case here. The difference of opinion between magistrates regarding jurisdiction did not warrant High Court intervention at this stage, as the matter had been properly…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Magistrates Courts
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Special Review Procedure
• Minimum Sentences Legislation