South Africa Case Law

Blysma v S (CC 56/2018)

Blysma v S (CC 56/2018) [2021] ZANWHC 10 (18 February 2021)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CC 56/2018

Judge

R D Hendricks

The court found that the applicant's statements to Colonel Coglin and Colonel Lange were properly admitted after a trial-within-a-trial, and that reasons for admission were appropriately provided in the main judgment. The applicant was not prejudiced or caught unaware, and his rights to a fair trial and legal representation were not infringed, as he made an informed decision to waive legal representation. The decision not to call the truck driver as a witness was a collective and informed choice by the applicant and his legal team, and there was no indication that the witness was essential to…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Fair Trial Rights
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 217
• Superior Courts Act Section 17
• Minimum Sentencing
• Trial Irregularities

Barends v S (R104/09)

Barends v S (R104/09) [2016] ZANCHC 17; 2017 (1) SACR 193 (NCK) (9 September 2016)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

R104/09

Judges

Kgomo, Matlapeng

The court found that the appellant's version of events was not credible and that the evidence of the state witnesses, particularly Ms Julies, was reliable and consistent. The appellant was shown to have armed himself, pursued the deceased, and stabbed him multiple times, including in the back and chest, which was corroborated by the post-mortem report. The defence of self-defence was rejected as the appellant was not under imminent threat when he attacked the deceased. The trial irregularities, including the improper trial-within-a-trial, did not affect the outcome as the evidence overwhelmin…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Self Defence
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Minimum Sentences
• Trial Irregularities

Masoanganye v S (252/2011)

Masoanganye v S (252/2011) [2011] ZASCA 119; 2012 (1) SACR 292 (SCA) (7 July 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

252/2011

Judges

Harms, Brand, Maya

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the special entries relied upon by the appellants did not qualify under section 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act, as they concerned attacks on rulings made during proceedings and did not relate to irregularities not appearing on the record. Therefore, the notices of appeal filed in the Supreme Court of Appeal were irregular and had to be set aside. The court found no factual basis for the appellants' belief that the full bench of the High Court would defer to the trial judge due to her position as judge president. Regarding bail, the trial court failed t…

Source excerpt

• Bail Pending Appeal
• Special Entries
• Flight Risk
• Leave To Appeal
• Sentencing
• Trial Irregularities

S v Sikhipha (262/05)

S v Sikhipha (262/05) [2006] ZASCA 73; 2006 (2) SACR 439 (SCA) (30 May 2006)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

262/05

Judges

Scott, Lewis, Van Heerden

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal in a rape case, but set aside life imprisonment and substituted 20 years’ imprisonment.

• Rape Of A Minor
• Sentencing Guidelines
• Trial Irregularities
• Legal Representation Rights
• Criminal-law
• Rape-of-a-minor