South Africa Case Law

Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Mathebula and Another (A110/2018)

Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Mathebula and Another (A110/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 514 (28 August 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A110/2018

Judges

C SardiWalla, N Engelbrecht

The High Court upheld an appeal against an acquittal after a regional magistrate closed the State’s case under section 342A without proper inquiry or notice.

• Unreasonable Trial Delay
• Section 342a Application
• Technical Irregularity
• Failure Of Justice
• Unreasonable-trial-delay
• Section-342a

Sizani v Mpofu N.O and Another (2804/2019)

Sizani v Mpofu N.O and Another (2804/2019) [2020] ZAECGHC 88 (18 August 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

2804/2019

Judges

M.J. Lowe, M.S. Rugunanan

The High Court found that the magistrate acted irregularly by closing the applicant's defence case under section 342A(3)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act without the required notice from either party. The peremptory requirements of section 342A(4)(a) were not met, as the magistrate acted mero motu and neither the applicant nor the prosecution gave notice of intention to apply for such an order. This technical irregularity materially prejudiced the applicant, as she was denied access to potentially material evidence (the CVs of 16 practitioners) and was unable to properly consider her defence.…

Source excerpt

• Unreasonable Trial Delay
• Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act
• Gross Irregularity
• Interim Review
• Right To Fair Trial

Mokoena v S (200/2018)

Mokoena v S (200/2018) [2019] ZASCA 74; 2019 (2) SACR 355 (SCA) (30 May 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

200/2018

Judges

Maya P, Tshiqi JA, Saldulker JA, Swain JA, Gorven AJA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the magistrate's decision to close the defence case under section 342A(3)(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act was procedurally irregular because the required notice under section 342A(4)(a) had not been given by the State. This defect was material, as it resulted in the exclusion of evidence and a failure of justice, thereby vitiating the proceedings. The high court erred in remitting the matter to the same magistrate, who had already made adverse credibility findings against the appellant, which would compromise the fairness of any further proceedings. Acco…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 342a
• Unreasonable Trial Delay
• Right To Fair Trial
• Remittal Of Case
• Technical Irregularity

S v Ndibe (14/544/2010)

S v Ndibe (14/544/2010) [2012] ZAWCHC 245 (14 December 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14/544/2010

Judges

T C Ndita, Zondi

The High Court held that the magistrate erred by striking the matter off the roll without conducting the enquiry required by section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act. The record did not reflect any investigation into the reasons for the delay or consideration of the statutory factors. The accused had already pleaded, and evidence had been led, making the remedy of striking off the roll inappropriate under section 342A(3)(c). Instead, the court should have considered other remedies, such as a wasted costs order. The order of the magistrate was therefore set aside. The judgment emphasized tha…

Source excerpt

• Unreasonable Trial Delay
• Section 342a Criminal Procedure Act
• Right To Speedy Trial
• Striking Off The Roll
• Wasted Costs Order