South Africa Case Law

Coetzee v Steenkamp (579/2009)

Coetzee v Steenkamp (579/2009) [2010] ZANCHC 25 (18 June 2010)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

579/2009

Judge

F DIALE KGOMO

The court found that the plaintiff was not a passive passenger but an active participant in the illegal hunting expedition, having shot a spring-hare and assisted with equipment. The plaintiff's ignorance of the law was rejected as incredible given his background and experience. The principle nemo ex suo delicto meliorem suam conditionem facere potest was applied, precluding the plaintiff from benefiting from his own unlawful conduct. The court distinguished the present case from authorities where the passenger's illegal act was not causally linked to the claim, finding that the plaintiff's p…

Source excerpt

• Nemo Ex Suo Delicto
• Contributory Negligence
• Volenti Non Fit Iniuria
• Illegal Hunting
• Statutory Offence

S v Theko (Spec 8/09)

S v Theko (Spec 8/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 146; 2010 (2) SACR 339 (GNP) (13 January 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

Spec 8/09

Judges

WRC Prinsloo, AA Louw

The magistrate erred in conducting an enquiry under section 170 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as this section does not apply to accused who are on bail. The correct procedure was to hold an enquiry under section 67(2)(a), which deals with bail forfeiture. Furthermore, the statutory offence under section 67A requires a formal charge and trial, not a summary enquiry. Since no proper trial was held, the conviction and sentence under section 170 cannot stand and cannot be substituted with a conviction under section 67A. The extension of bail after the abortive enquiry does not require further in…

Source excerpt

• Bail Forfeiture
• Failure To Appear
• Summary Enquiry
• Statutory Offence
• Criminal Procedure Act

S v Baloyi (A453/09)

S v Baloyi (A453/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 233 (1 June 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A453/09

Judges

C Botha, N Ranchod

On special review, the High Court confirmed a conviction for housebreaking and clarified that it should be framed under section 1(1) of the Trespass Act, 1959.

• Trespass Act
• Housebreaking
• Statutory Offence
• Sentencing
• Conviction Confirmation
• Criminal-law

Minister of Safety and Security v Howard (7002/04)

Minister of Safety and Security v Howard (7002/04) [2009] ZAGPJHC 9; 2009 (5) SA 201 (GSJ) ; 2009 (2) SACR 536 (GSJ) (24 April 2009)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

7002/04

Judge

Horwitz

The court held that South African law recognises a claim by the Minister of Police against any individual who, by causing a false report to be made to the Police, causes the Police to suffer monetary loss as a result of expending time, effort, and resources in investigating the content of the false report in the belief that it was genuine. The court found that the respondent's conduct was unlawful and that the prerequisites for a valid delictual action were present, satisfying the element of wrongfulness. Actual expenditure incurred by the Police in investigating the hoax is recoverable as pa…

Source excerpt

• Pure Economic Loss
• Wrongfulness
• Public Policy
• Fraud
• Statutory Offence
• Damages

S v Brown (15/2008)

S v Brown (15/2008) [2008] ZANCHC 17 (28 March 2008)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

15/2008

Judges

C J Olivier, H J Lacock

On automatic review, the High Court confirmed Brown’s conviction but amended the suspended sentence condition to refer to the current road traffic statute.

• Sentencing
• Suspended Sentence Conditions
• Statutory Offence
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Suspended-sentence-conditions
• Statutory-interpretation

S v Schoeman (107/2007)

S v Schoeman (107/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 40 (15 May 2007)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

107/2007

Judges

C. van Zyl, P. Zietsman

The court held that the charge sheet, despite referencing the incorrect section and omitting the penalty provision, adequately described the statutory offence and provided sufficient particulars for the accused to understand the nature of the charge. The errors did not render the charge invalid nor prejudice the accused. However, the sentence imposed referenced the wrong section and was therefore meaningless in its suspended condition. The court confirmed the conviction but set aside the sentence and replaced it with a suspended sentence referencing the correct statutory provision, namely sec…

Source excerpt

• Firearms Control Act
• Statutory Offence
• Charge Description Requirements
• Sentencing
• Suspended Sentence

S v Mosipili (901/2005)

S v Mosipili (901/2005) [2005] ZAFSHC 102 (1 September 2005)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

901/2005

Judges

H.M. Musi, C.B. Cillié

The High Court set aside a conviction and sentence because the charge sheet failed to identify the statute creating the trespass offence, making the charge fatally defective.

• Defective Charge Sheet
• Statutory Offence
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 84
• Trespass
• Defective-charge-sheet
• Criminal-procedure

S v Mbatha (A240/2003)

S v Mbatha (A240/2003) [2005] ZAFSHC 40 (28 April 2005)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A240/2003

Judges

G. Van Coppenhagen, J.P. Malherbe

Appeal against sentence for dealing in 219 kg of dagga. Conviction was confirmed, but the High Court substituted a lower sentence as disproportionate.

• Drug Trafficking
• Sentencing Discretion
• Statutory Offence
• Mitigating Factors
• Criminal-law
• Drug-trafficking

S v Van Dyk (042/2004)

S v Van Dyk (042/2004) [2004] ZASCA 86; 2005 (1) SACR 35 (SCA) (29 September 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

042/2004

Judges

Streicher, Navsa, Nugent, Jafta, Patel

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, when read as a whole, does not prohibit the imposition of correctional supervision for statutory offences even if the penalty provision of the statute does not expressly provide for it. Section 276(3) makes it clear that correctional supervision is available for any offence, and the restrictive interpretation adopted by the Cape High Court in previous cases was incorrect. However, in the present case, the appellant was not a suitable candidate for correctional supervision due to his prior conviction fo…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing
• Correctional Supervision
• Statutory Offence
• Interpretation Of Statutes

S v Blomo (173/03)

S v Blomo (173/03) [2003] ZANWHC 58 (3 August 2003)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

173/03

Judges

R.D. Hendricks, H.N. Hendler

On special review, the court confirmed the conviction but amended the sentence to include a four-year suspension period that the original sentence had omitted.

• Sentencing
• Suspended Sentence
• Statutory Offence
• Criminal-law
• Suspended-sentence
• Special-review