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
S v Meyering (Review) (2/25) [2025] ZAWCHC 333 (5 August 2025)
The High Court held that an accused’s death after plea terminates the prosecution. It set aside the magistrate’s withdrawal of charges and remitted the matter for formal termination.
Department of International Relations and Cooperation v Laubscher and Others (JA54/2021) [2022] ZALAC 124; [2023] 1 BLLR 1 (LAC); (2022) 43 ILJ 2716 (LAC) (25 August 2022)
The Labour Appeal Court held that an aborted disciplinary process with no sanction imposed is not disciplinary action short of dismissal under section 186(2)(b).
De Vos v Health Professionals Council of South Africa (66658/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 471 (17 June 2022)
The court found that the decision to withdraw the charges and not reconvene the Professional Conduct Committee was not irrational. The respondents acted within their powers under the Health Professions Act and Regulations, and there was no legal obligation to continue the enquiry after the complainant withdrew the charges and the applicant had not completed the necessary training requirements. The applicant's claim that his inability to register was due to the disciplinary process was not supported by the facts. The decision not to proceed with the enquiry after the applicant pleaded was an a…
Source excerpt
Govender v Provincial Head of Commercial Crime and Others (D04/2021) [2021] ZALCD 74 (2 September 2021)
The court found that the Respondents failed to comply with Regulation 8(1) by not completing the investigation or proceeding with disciplinary action within the prescribed timeframes. The explanation that the COVID-19 pandemic caused the delay was rejected, as the misconduct allegations and initial steps occurred well before the pandemic. The Respondents only acted after the application was brought and set down for hearing, indicating that the Applicant's intervention was necessary to obtain relief. The withdrawal of charges resolved the substantive dispute, leaving only the issue of costs. A…
Source excerpt
Uzani Environmental Advocacy CC v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (CC82/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 749 (14 November 2017)
The court held that BP was not entitled to plead to the charges at the hearing of 13 November 2017 because Uzani had not yet finalized the indictment and reasonable notice had not been given in light of BP's special pleas. The sequence of procedural steps must commence with Uzani delivering a final amended indictment, followed by the hearing of BP's application to compel documents, and only thereafter may BP object to the charges or plead. The court ruled that the application to compel documents should be dealt with in the same manner as the delivery of particulars under section 87 of the Cri…
Source excerpt
S v Thulo and Another (R87/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 120 (5 May 2016)
On special review, the court set aside a withdrawal order and an unresolved plea record because the criminal matters were not finally disposed of.
Steyl v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (27307/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 407 (9 June 2015)
The court found, on the probabilities and the evidence of all legal representatives and the State's own witnesses, that a binding plea agreement was concluded on 5 November 2012. The agreement was that Mr Lemthongthai would plead guilty to specified charges, and upon his conviction, all charges against the applicant and other accused would be permanently withdrawn. The withdrawal was not conditional or temporary, and the applicant was led to believe, through his legal representatives and the conduct of the State, that he would not be prosecuted again on the same facts. The subsequent decision…
Source excerpt
Freedom Under Law v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (26912/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 271; [2013] 4 All SA 657 (GNP); 2014 (1) SA 254 (GNP); 2014 (1) SACR 111 (GNP) (23 September 2013)
The court found that the decisions to withdraw criminal and disciplinary charges against Lieutenant-General Richard Mdluli were unlawful, irrational, and invalid. The Special Director of Public Prosecutions withdrew charges without the required concurrence of the relevant DPP, violating section 24(3) of the NPA Act. The process was arbitrary, ignored compelling evidence, and failed to consult relevant stakeholders, breaching the requirements of legality and rationality. The withdrawal of disciplinary charges and reinstatement of Mdluli were made under dictation from unauthorised persons, amou…
Source excerpt
Crookes v Sibisi and Others (AR 368/09) [2010] ZAKZPHC 17; 2011 (1) SACR 23 (KZP) ; 2011 (1) SA 491 (KZP) (4 May 2010)
The court held that the Criminal Procedure Act does not prohibit a private prosecutor from withdrawing charges before plea and reinstituting proceedings, provided this is not done for improper purposes such as harassment or extortion. The repeated institution and withdrawal of private prosecutions in this case did not amount to an abuse of process, as the withdrawals were linked to attempts at settlement and were not shown to be vexatious. The delay in prosecution was not extreme and did not infringe the appellant's constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial, nor did it cause sufficient…
Source excerpt
Explore more
