South Africa Case Law

Ngcobo v S (AR 247/24)

Ngcobo v S (AR 247/24) [2025] ZAKZPHC 55 (12 June 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 247/24

Judges

Harrison, Radebe, P Bezuidenhout

The court found that the appellant's confession was inadmissible because the police were aware that he had legal representation and failed to allow him to consult with his attorney prior to making the statement. The evidence of the attorney, Mr Manzini, that he was to be present for any statement was never challenged or rejected. The conviction was based solely on the confession, and the absence of proper consultation constituted a material breach of the appellant's constitutional rights under section 35 of the Constitution. The admission of the confession rendered the trial unfair and was de…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Right To Legal Representation
• Section 35 Constitution
• Fair Trial Rights
• Exclusion Of Evidence
• Trial Within A Trial

Mchunu and Another v S (AR39/2022)

Mchunu and Another v S (AR39/2022) [2024] ZAKZPHC 92; 2025 (1) SACR 257 (KZP) (11 October 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR39/2022

Judges

Steyn, Vahed, Singh

The High Court set aside two murder and robbery convictions after finding the appellants’ confessions were inadmissible and the trial court failed to assess the evidence properly.

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Trial Within A Trial
• Constitutional Rights Of Accused
• Section 217 Criminal Procedure Act
• Fruit Of The Poisoned Tree
• Minimum Sentences

S v Somadlangathi (CC14/2022)

S v Somadlangathi (CC14/2022) [2023] ZAECMHC 64 (21 August 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CC14/2022

Judge

RWN Brooks

The Court found that the warning statement and confession made by the accused were inadmissible due to serious procedural irregularities, unreliable police testimony, and credible allegations of assault and coercion. The investigating officer failed to record accurate dates and times, and the process of taking the confession was tainted by haste, proximity to the investigation, and the use of a commissioned police officer as justice of the peace. The accused's version of events, though embellished, could not be excluded as reasonably possibly true. No evidence linked the accused to the murder…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Trial Within A Trial
• Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Police Misconduct

Mshudulu v Regional Court Magistrate Kimberley, Northern Cape and Another (1518/2021)

Mshudulu v Regional Court Magistrate Kimberley, Northern Cape and Another (1518/2021) [2022] ZANCHC 25; 2023 (1) SACR 108 (NCK) (20 May 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1518/2021

Judges

Lever, Chwaro

The High Court dismissed a pre-trial review of a magistrate’s refusal to hold a trial-within-a-trial over recorded calls, finding no exceptional circumstances or irreparable harm.

• Review Of Magistrates Decision
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Trial Within A Trial
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Irreparable Harm
• Criminal-review

S v Mabaso (R25/2022)

S v Mabaso (R25/2022) [2022] ZAKZPHC 15; 2022 (2) SACR 191 (KZP) (13 May 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

R25/2022

Judges

Poyo Dlwati, Chili

The High Court reviewed and set aside a regional court trial after a trial-within-a-trial was mishandled, ordering the matter to start de novo before another magistrate.

• Trial Within A Trial
• Admissibility Of Confession
• Gross Irregularity
• Right To Fair Trial
• Trial-within-a-trial
• Admissibility-of-confession

Kutu v S (CC124/2008)

Kutu v S (CC124/2008) [2021] ZAECMHC 4 (26 January 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CC124/2008

Judge

Z M Nhlangulela

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The evidence did not support his claims of assault or denial of legal representation, and his versions were materially inconsistent and not reasonably possibly true. The confession was properly admitted, and there was no undue influence or violation of constitutional rights. The convictions for murder and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition were supported by ballistic evidence and the applicant's conduct. The sentence of life imprisonment was mandatory for premeditated murder, and n…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confession
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearm
• Common Purpose
• Mandatory Sentencing
• Constitutional Rights
• Trial Within A Trial

Raphotle v S (A77/2015)

Raphotle v S (A77/2015) [2020] ZALMPPHC 94 (4 September 2020)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

A77/2015

Judges

M.V Semenya, Acting Judge of the High Court

Appeal against a robbery conviction succeeded after the High Court found a material irregularity in restricting cross-examination on a police statement.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Trial Within A Trial
• Single Witness Cautionary Rule
• Mistaken Identity
• Cross Examination
• Procedural Irregularity

S v Gqoki and Others (CC14/2018)

S v Gqoki and Others (CC14/2018) [2020] ZAECMHC 63; 2025 (1) SACR 465 (ECM) (26 February 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CC14/2018

Judge

RWN Brooks

The court excluded alleged confessions and a pointing out after finding a reasonable possibility of police assault and undue influence, then discharged all accused under section 174.

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Police Brutality
• Minimum Sentence Legislation
• Trial Within A Trial
• Section 174 Discharge
• Admissibility-of-confessions

S v Okafor and Others (R155/2019, 1121/15)

S v Okafor and Others (R155/2019, 1121/15) [2019] ZAFSHC 212 (17 October 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R155/2019, 1121/15

Judges

Naidoo, Ramlal

The court held that the reconstructed record was substantially accurate and sufficient for the trial to continue. The alleged prejudice to accused 1 and 3, arising from missing submissions by their previous attorney, could be cured by recalling witnesses to verify the reconstructed evidence and allowing the accused to make the relevant submissions. The magistrate retains the duty to ensure a proper record and is not functus officio. There is no legal basis to set aside the proceedings and order a de novo trial in a part-heard matter where the record can be reconstructed and verified. Setting…

Source excerpt

• Reconstruction Of Record
• Fair Trial Rights
• Trial Within A Trial
• Procedural Irregularity

Ndimande v S (248/2018)

Ndimande v S (248/2018) [2019] ZASCA 132 (30 September 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

248/2018

Judges

Ponnan, Saldulker, Swain, Mbatha, Hughes

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the identification evidence of Mr Mbatha was unreliable, as it was based on video footage not produced in court and was a dock identification after the appellant had been seen during a pointing out. The trial court and full court misdirected themselves by admitting this evidence without proper corroboration. The pointing out was obtained in violation of the appellant's constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent and to make a statement in court, and was not made freely and voluntarily. The trial court further erred by preventing the appel…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Identification Evidence
• Right To Fair Trial
• Trial Within A Trial
• Constitutional Rights
• Exclusion Of Unfairly Obtained Evidence