South Africa Case Law

S v Bergman; S v Matume (14 /884/2021; T1715/2018)

S v Bergman; S v Matume (14 /884/2021; T1715/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC 60; 2023 (1) SACR 533 (WCC) (17 March 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14 /884/2021; T1715/2018

Judges

N Ralarala, C.N. Nziweni

The High Court found that in both matters, the magistrates failed to adequately canvass all the elements of the offences during plea proceedings. In Bergman, the questioning did not establish intention or unlawfulness, and the magistrate conceded this error. In Matume, the accused's lack of knowledge regarding the unlawfulness of his conduct was not properly addressed, and the court failed to invoke section 113 of the CPA when a defence was raised. The sentences imposed, particularly the suspended sentence in Matume, were not competently formulated as they lacked clarity regarding the period…

Source excerpt

• Plea Proceedings
• Section 112 Cpa
• Section 113 Cpa
• Mens Rea
• Unlawfulness
• Suspended Sentence

Mkhize v S (AR365/21)

Mkhize v S (AR365/21) [2023] ZAKZPHC 11 (3 February 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR365/21

Judges

Chetty, Ploos van Amstel

The High Court upheld an appeal against a murder conviction because the accused’s s 112(2) statement did not admit intention or unlawfulness.

• Guilty Plea Procedure
• Mens Rea
• Unlawfulness
• S112 Statement
• Premeditated Murder
• Guilty-plea-procedure

S v Neoth and Another (SS52/2020)

S v Neoth and Another (SS52/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 768 (29 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS52/2020

Judge

Africa

The High Court dismissed leave to appeal against a conviction for accessory after the fact to murder, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

• Accessory After The Fact
• Unlawfulness
• Burden Of Proof
• Reasonable Prospect Of Success
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Failure To Testify

Ernest v S (AR66/2020)

Ernest v S (AR66/2020) [2020] ZAKZPHC 76; 2021 (1) SACR 324 (KZP) (10 December 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR66/2020

Judges

Steyn, Jappie

The appeal succeeded because the trial court materially misdirected itself in its evaluation of the evidence and application of the law on self-defence. The State's witnesses were found to be unreliable, and the trial court failed to properly assess the appellant's version, which remained consistent and was the only reliable account before the court. The magistrate erred by relying on the post-mortem report without calling the pathologist to clarify its findings, and by disregarding the appellant's credible assertion that he acted in self-defence under imminent threat. The State failed to pro…

Source excerpt

• Private Defence
• Murder
• Burden Of Proof
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Unlawfulness
• Intention To Kill

Mokoena v S (R03/19)

Mokoena v S (R03/19) [2020] ZAMPMHC 32 (23 July 2020)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

R03/19

Judges

Brauckmann, M T Mankge

On automatic review, the High Court set aside a conviction for malicious damage to property, holding the wall demolished by the accused belonged to him.

• Malicious Damage To Property
• Accession
• Ownership
• Unlawfulness
• Possession
• Criminal Liability

S v Phakoe (337/2012)

S v Phakoe (337/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 228 (6 December 2012)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

337/2012

Judges

Rampai, Jordaan

The court found that the accused did not freely and without undue influence admit all the elements of the charge, particularly unlawfulness and intent to do grievous bodily harm. The magistrate's persistent and excessive questioning, after the accused denied knowledge of unlawfulness and intent, exceeded the permissible bounds of section 112 and amounted to material irregularity. The accused's responses indicated a lack of admission of key elements, and the court failed to apply section 113 when required. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence regarding the nature of the injuries and in…

Source excerpt

• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Section 112 Procedure
• Unlawfulness
• Culpability
• Section 113 Procedure

Pestana v Du Toit (A554/2011)

Pestana v Du Toit (A554/2011) [2012] ZAGPPHC 154 (8 August 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A554/2011

Judge

Prinsloo

The court found that the respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the words 'die polisie soek jou' were defamatory in the circumstances. The evidence showed that the statement was made at the request of the respondent, who demanded a reason for his removal, and that those present (Naomi and Oelofse) were either already prejudiced or remained friends with the respondent, negating any lowering of reputation. The words were ambiguous and could have an innocent meaning, and the respondent did not demonstrate any tangible harm. Even if the statement was defamatory, the appellant reb…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Animus Iniuriandi
• Unlawfulness
• Volenti Non Fit Iniuria
• Quantum Of Damages

Makitla v SBV Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (54731/2009)

Makitla v SBV Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (54731/2009) [2012] ZAGPPHC 41 (22 February 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

54731/2009

Judge

du Plessis

The High Court dismissed a delict claim by a SAPS captain after cash-in-transit guards mistook him for a threat during surveillance.

• Actio Inluriarum
• Personality Rights
• Unlawfulness
• Intent
• Putative Self Defence
• Actio-iniuriarum

Steyn v S (105/09)

Steyn v S (105/09) [2009] ZASCA 152; 2010 (1) SACR 411 (SCA) (27 November 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

105/09

Judges

Mthiyane JA, Leach AJA, Wallis AJA

The SCA held that the appellant acted in private defence when she shot her abusive former husband as he advanced on her with a knife, so her conviction was set aside.

• Private Defence
• Self Defence
• Culpable Homicide
• Unlawfulness
• Reasonable Person Standard
• Private-defence

Du Preez and Others v Zwiegers (61/07)

Du Preez and Others v Zwiegers (61/07) [2008] ZASCA 42; 2008 (4) SA 627 (SCA); [2008] 3 All SA 425 (SCA) (28 March 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

61/07

Judges

Howie, Nugent, Cloete, Heher, Maya

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent attorney owed a legal duty to the corporation as the depositor of the trust account funds, even though the corporation was not his client. The respondent's failure to contact the corporation or its attorneys to confirm instructions regarding the disposal of the funds constituted negligence. The court rejected the notion that the attorney could lawfully ignore the depositor's interests simply because his client provided instructions. The damages suffered were directly attributable to the respondent's negligent conduct, and the corporation's…

Source excerpt

• Attorney Trust Account Liability
• Negligence
• Damages
• Unlawfulness
• Legal Duty