South Africa Case Law

Dubula v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (2695/2017)

Dubula v Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (2695/2017) [2021] ZAECPEHC 34 (27 May 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

2695/2017

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that while the statutory presumption of negligence applied, the defendant municipality presented credible evidence that the CDU was vandalised and that the direct cause of harm was the insertion of a rod by another child. The municipality had constructed the CDU to be self-contained, affixed warning signs, and relied on community reporting due to the impracticality of regular inspections for thousands of units. The court balanced the foreseeability and gravity of risk against the utility of the municipality's actions and the burden of eliminating risk, concluding that the defe…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Liability
• Negligence
• Electricity Distribution
• Statutory Presumption
• Public Safety
• Vandalism

Kew v S (CA&R138/19)

Kew v S (CA&R138/19) [2020] ZAECGHC 46 (21 May 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R138/19

Judges

S Jikela, B Hartle

The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol, rejecting challenges to the blood sample's identity and contamination.

• Driving Under Influence
• Chain Of Evidence
• Statutory Presumption
• Contamination Of Evidence
• Burden Of Proof
• Driving-under-the-influence

Sifunda v S (A577/2013)

Sifunda v S (A577/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 391 (20 June 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A577/2013

Judges

A L C Lephoko, T M Makgoka

The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for driving under the influence, holding the unchallenged evidence and statutory presumption sufficient.

• Driving Under The Influence
• Statutory Presumption
• Burden Of Proof
• Public Road Definition
• Driving-under-the-influence
• Criminal-appeal

SA Metal & Machinery Co (Pty) Ltd v S (398/09)

SA Metal & Machinery Co (Pty) Ltd v S (398/09) [2010] ZASCA 81; 2010 (2) SACR 413 (S (28 May 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

398/09

Judges

Navsa, Van Heerden, Bosielo

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside SA Metal’s conviction for receiving stolen copper cathodes, holding the State’s charge was limited to named employees and amendment would prejudice the defence.

• Corporate Criminal Liability
• Statutory Presumption
• Reasonable Cause
• Amendment Of Charge Sheet
• Corporate-criminal-liability
• Statutory-presumption

S v Malandule and Others (A143/09)

S v Malandule and Others (A143/09) [2009] ZAGPPHC 69 (2 March 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A143/09

Judges

Botha, B.R Du Plessis

The High Court confirmed the conviction of the driver for unlawful firearm possession, but set aside the convictions of the three other accused.

• Unlawful Possession Of Firearm
• Statutory Presumption
• Joint Possession
• Constitutional Validity Of Presumption
• Unlawful-possession-of-firearm
• Statutory-presumption

S v Bartmann en Andere (158/93)

S v Bartmann en Andere (158/93) [1995] ZASCA 159 (30 November 1995)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

158/93

Judges

Van Heerden, Vivier, Marais

The court held that “verloor” on a firearm licence form was ambiguous, so the State failed to prove fraud. It also partly upheld convictions for failure to report firearm losses.

• Fraud
• Firearms Control
• Statutory Presumption
• Burden Of Proof
• Reporting Obligation
• Interpretation Of Statute

S v Mthethwa (302/1994)

S v Mthethwa (302/1994) [1995] ZASCA 120 (28 September 1995)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

302/1994

Judges

Joubert, Steyn, F H Grosskopf

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant's denial of residence and knowledge of the firearm was false and contradicted by credible police testimony and the probabilities of the case. The appellant's statements to Sergeant Joubert, her conduct, and the circumstances of the discovery of the firearm under her bed established beyond reasonable doubt that she had knowledge of and control over the firearm and ammunition, and that she was keeping them for her boyfriend, Dlamini. The Court held that the requirements of possession under the Act were satisfied and that the conviction was ju…

Source excerpt

• Possession Of Unlicensed Firearm
• Mens Rea
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Statutory Presumption
• Sentence Suspension

S v Ndwalane (400/94)

S v Ndwalane (400/94) [1995] ZASCA 102 (19 September 1995)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

400/94

Judges

Hefer, Nestadt, Scott

The court upheld a conviction for unlawful possession of rifles and ammunition, but reduced the sentence from 8 years to 3 years after finding the original term too harsh.

• Arms And Ammunition Act
• Statutory Presumption
• Possession Definition
• Sentencing Guidelines
• Criminal-law
• Firearms-offences

Steenberg v De Kaap Timber (Pty) Ltd. (241/89)

Steenberg v De Kaap Timber (Pty) Ltd. (241/89) [1991] ZASCA 144; [1992] 1 All SA 337 (A) (8 November 1991)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

241/89

Judges

Botha, Nestadt, Van den Heever

The court found that the fire which caused the respondent's damages originated on the defendant's property, specifically in the maize lands, and was started by the defendant's servants. The evidence established a sufficient nexus between the defendant's conduct and the fire, satisfying the requirements for the statutory presumption of negligence under section 84 of the Forest Act. The defendant failed to rebut the presumption, as he did not provide a credible explanation or evidence of adequate precautions taken to prevent the fire from spreading. The court held that the defendant was liable…

Source excerpt

• Negligence
• Statutory Presumption
• Forest Fire Liability
• Causation
• Onus Of Proof

S v Abrahams (369/90)

S v Abrahams (369/90) [1991] ZASCA 128 (27 September 1991)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

369/90

Judges

Botha, Milne, Nicholas

The court held that no actual possession was proved and the statutory presumption did not apply because the drugs were buried outside the room and access was shared.

• Possession Of Prohibited Substance
• Statutory Presumption
• Burden Of Proof
• Interpretation Of Possession
• Criminal-law
• Drug-possession