Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Yoni v S (CA&R119-2022) [2024] ZAECMHC 51 (12 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal, finding an irregular plea inquiry and an inadmissible confession, but sufficient voluntary admissions and circumstantial evidence.
S.T.T and Others v Minister Of Police (26369/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 150 (20 February 2023)
The court held that the plaintiffs' application for judgment at the close of the defendant's case, without leading evidence or closing their case, is procedurally irregular and prejudicial to the defendant. The authorities cited by the plaintiffs do not support their position; in fact, the correct legal principle is that judgment cannot be granted for the plaintiff until the plaintiff has closed its case. Rule 39 of the Uniform Rules of Court requires the party bearing the onus to call evidence and close its case before the opposing party may do so. The procedure adopted by the plaintiffs was…
Source excerpt
Absa I-Direct Ltd v Lazarus NO and Another (8585/2016) [2017] ZAKZDHC 14 (22 March 2017)
The High Court reviewed and set aside magistrate’s rulings barring cross-examination on unproved documents, holding such questions are allowed subject to later proof.
S v Phiri (CC512/2007) [2007] ZAGPHC 337; 2008 (2) SACR 21 (T) (4 December 2007)
The High Court refused to confirm a rape conviction after finding serious trial irregularities, including judicial interference and unreliable DNA handling.
S v Naicker (AR204/07) [2007] ZAKZHC 8; 2008 (2) SACR 54 (N); (16 August 2007)
The court found that the failure to appoint assessors in the murder trial was an irregularity, as section 93ter(1)(a) of the Magistrates Court Act requires assessors unless the accused requests otherwise. However, the irregularity was not so fundamental as to vitiate the proceedings per se. The purpose of assessors is to bridge cultural gaps, and in this case, both the magistrate and accused belonged to the same racial group, so no prejudice arose. The appellant was legally represented, and there was no evidence of unfairness. The court applied the harmless error doctrine, holding that only i…
Source excerpt
Salmans (Salmons) v S (A205/05) [2005] ZAWCHC 84; 2006 (1) SACR 333 (C) (10 November 2005)
The court found that the complainant's identification of the appellant was reliable, as she knew him personally and provided a detailed description. The corroborative evidence of Kevin Ceasar further supported the identification. The presence of a witness in court during another's testimony was not an irregularity sufficient to vitiate the trial, as there was no indication that the evidence was adapted or prejudiced. On the legal question of whether the facts supported robbery or theft, the court held that the grabbing of the cellphone from the complainant's hand constituted sufficient force…
Source excerpt
S v Jaipal (593/02) [2004] ZASCA 45; [2004] 3 All SA 409 (SCA) (27 May 2004)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the presence of assessors in the same office as the prosecutor and investigating officer did not constitute a fatal irregularity. The public was informed in open court that no discussions about the case took place, and the office sharing was for logistical reasons. A well-informed, objective observer would not perceive bias or loss of confidence in the legal system under these circumstances. On the merits, the court held that the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the appellant as the perpetrator of the murder. The appellant's alibi was di…
Source excerpt
S v Potwana and Others (66/91) [1993] ZASCA 194 (30 November 1993)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the trial court committed material misdirections and irregularities in admitting the confessions of the appellants. The trial court placed undue emphasis on the truthfulness and detail of the confessions, equating denial of authorship with lack of credibility, and failed to properly assess the evidence of threats and assaults. The court also disregarded relevant evidence, including the testimony of Rose Mahlanga, which supported the appellants' version of police misconduct. The failure to bring the appellants before a magistrate to record their confessio…
Source excerpt
S v Malinga (388/86) [1987] ZASCA 42 (12 May 1987)
The court held that failing to appoint two assessors in a murder trial where death was a possible sentence was a fatal irregularity. Conviction and sentence were set aside.
S v Mofokeng (48/84) [1984] ZASCA 49 (17 May 1984)
The appeal against a murder conviction and death sentence failed. The court held the State witnesses were credible, and no extenuating circumstances were proved.
Explore more
