IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION
|
|
- Branden Watts
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION CASE NO : A205/2005 In the matter between : SAMUEL SALMANS [SALMONS] Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT DELIVERED THIS 10 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2005 FOXCROFT, J : The Appellant was convicted in the District Court, Thembalethu, George, on a charge of robbery. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment and the appeal lies only against the conviction. The grounds of appeal appear at p.62 of the Record and are in handwriting. As is repeated in the Heads of Argument, the grounds of appeal amounted to two complaints, the first being that a witness
2 2 testified that the Appellant was wearing a yellow cap and that she had recognised him for that reason only. The second complaint was that while witness No 1 was giving her evidence, witness No 2 was present in court. Mr Cloete, an attorney appearing on behalf of Appellant, submitted further in his Heads of Argument although this point had not been raised as a ground of appeal that the charge upon which Appellant had been found guilty should have been theft and not robbery. He referred to the Record at p.5 in support of his view that no force was used. In my view, there is no substance in the grounds of appeal raised initially by Appellant. The complainant had testified that she knew who he was and that she had seen him many times before that night. She added that she was standing directly under a light when her cellphone was taken from her. She was also able to give a detailed description of his clothing, including the fact that he wore a yellow cap. She also gave the police his address, and she knew that the Appellant was on parole. This evidence was corroborated by the witness Kevin Ceasar, who testified to the effect that he had noticed the Appellant, whom he knew
3 3 by the nickname Bees, approaching the complainant who was talking on her cellphone. He also identified Appellant by the yellow cap. Appellant admitted in court that he did own a yellow cap. I have no doubt that the Magistrate was correct in finding that there was sufficient evidence identifying the Appellant as the person who had taken the complainant s cellphone. Mr Pothier, who appeared for the State, conceded that it is undesirable for witnesses to be in court while other witnesses testify, but submitted that this was not the type of irregularity which would vitiate a trial. The question is whether or not the trial can be said to have been unfair as a result of the irregularity. I agree with his submission that there is nothing to suggest that Ceaser adapted his evidence according to what he might have heard the complainant saying in court. In fact, he described the Appellant as wearing 'n valerige top, whereas complainant had described it as of a cream colour. Ceaser also insisted that he did not see the Appellant actually taking the cellphone, and as Mr Pothier pointed out, it would
4 4 have been simple to strengthen the complainant s evidence, having heard it, to say that he had seen the Appellant grab the cellphone. The evidence at p.18 of the Record shows that the witness, Ceaser, was not prepared to simply fall in with the prosecutor s question, put in a leading form. The evidence reads as follows : STAAT : En toe, wat het gebeur? GETUIE K. CEASER : Wanneer? STAAT : Na hy nou die foon gegryp het. GETUIE K. CEASER : Toe hy die foon gegryp het? STAAT : Ja. GETUIE K. CEASER : Ek het nie gesien hy gryp die foon nie.. STATE : Sorry your Worship, I withdraw that line of questioning. Nothing further, your Worship. Again, I am satisfied that the Magistrate was correct in accepting the evidence of Ceaser as corroborative of that of the complainant. As to the correctness of the robbery conviction, the Record shows that the complainant saw the Appellant mumbling to himself and ignored him,
5 5 And I was busy on the phone. So he walked back towards his friends and walked past me again. As I was about to put the phone to my ear, that is when he grabbed the phone and he ran. [Record, p.5] She repeated this evidence on page 6 of the Record, where she apparently demonstrated to the Court the hand in which she was holding the phone when the Appellant grabbed the phone. In his Heads of Argument, Mr Cloete referred to certain authorities in support of his submission, but at the hearing of the appeal he handed up a further authority in this Division. The case is that of S v MATI reported in 2002[1] SACR 323. In an automatic review judgment, NGWENYA, J had to deal with a very similar situation as the one before us, on the face of it. In that matter the accused pleaded guilty, and in answer to questions said that he had been at a traffic light and had seen the woman across the street with a cellphone in her hand. He had crossed the street and as he walked past, had grabbed [gegryp] the cellphone out of her hand and run away. She screamed and he was chased and caught by other persons. NGWENYA, J with whom MSIMANG, AJ concurred in this review judgment noted that what he colloquially described as mobile phone snatching was not different to handbag snatching and he acknowledged that handbag snatching had
6 6 for many years been treated as theft. A number of cases are referred to where the earlier approach had been adopted, and then the case of S v MOGALA EN ANDERE, 1978[2] SA 412 [A] is dealt with. In that matter, RUMPFF, CJ questioned the longheld conventional view about bag snatching and said : Ek vind dit moeilik om te verstaan waarom 'n persoon wat met geweld 'n handsak uit 'n vrou se hand ruk, nie geweld pleeg nie (al hoef dit gering te wees) met die doel om die handsak te ontneem. Dit skyn my haarklowery te wees om te sê dat die geweld toevallig is, of dat dit die slagoffer nie in 'n toestand van onmag plaas nie. Die gryper weet goed dat hy alleen deur 'n onverwagte vinnige en harde ruk die handsak kan kry. Hy weet dat sy slagoffer weerstand sou bied indien hy dit gewoonweg sou probeer vat. Daarom moet hy die slagoffer se greep en verdere weerstand byvoorbaat uitskakel deur vinnige handeling wat uit geweld bestaan. RUMPFF, CJ found it unnecessary to review the previous decisions since he was satisfied on the facts that the evidence showed that force [ geweld ] was used to get the handbag away from the complainant in that matter. It has been pointed out by a number of academic writers and judges
7 7 that the remarks by RUMPFF, CJ in STATE v MOGALA were obiter. For instance, in DE WET EN SWANEPOEL, Strafreg, 4 th Ed at p.376, the learned authors say the following : Hierdie obiter dictum het aanleiding gegee tot 'n aantal beslissings waarin die grypdief wat maar net die handsak uit die slagoffer se greep pluk as rower beskou word sien S v SITHOLE 1981[1] SA 1186 [N]; S v MAFOKENG 1982[4] SA 147 [T]; S v WITBOOI, 1984[1] SA 242 [C]. Na my mening is die geweld wat by hierdie situasies beoefen word darem 'n bietjie dun. Daar is per slot van rekening geen geweld op die persoon beoefen nie. That view of the authors is, of course, at variance with what RUMPFF, CJ said at p.415h of S v MOGALA [supra], since he said : Daarom moet hy die slagoffer se greep en verdere weerstand byvoorbaat uitskakel deur 'n vinnige handeling wat uit geweld bestaan. The writers may have been concerned about the sort of situation which has occurred in some cases and which came before the Transvaal Provincial Division in S v MASILELA, 1996[3] All SA 42; 1996[2] SACR 127 [T]. There, the Court referred to the definition by SNYMAN
8 8 in Strafreg, 3 rd Ed : Roof is die wederregtelike, opsetlike, gewelddadige wegname en toeëiening van 'n ander se roerende liggaamlike sake. At 516 the writer adds : Die klaer se weerstand moet oorkom word en die saak verkry word deur middel van geweld ten aansien van sy persoon. He also refers to HUNT s definition in South African Criminal Law and Procedure, 2 nd Ed. 680, where robbery is defined as Robbery consists in the theft of property by intentionally using violence or threats of violence to induce submission to the taking of it from another. In that work, HUNT added the following at 682 : Any violence which would constitute an assault suffices, it may be
9 9 very slight in degree, and it need not cause injury. The emphasis is that of ELS, J. The words of RUMPFF, CJ in S v MOGALA are then referred to, and what is emphasized is the fact that the bag in that case was forcibly removed from a woman s hand. The judgment of THIRION, J in S v SITHOLE, 1981[1] SA 1186 is then also dealt with, particularly in respect of the finding of the learned Judge in that matter that the violence must be directed against the person of the victim. The ratio of the MASILELA case appears at p.46 of the report, where one finds the following : In hierdie geval, alhowel daar 'n geringe mate van geweld was, was die geweld nie gerig teen die liggam {persoon] van die slagoffer nie. Hier het die beskuldigde bloot die selfoon van die lyfband van die klaer afgeruk en die blote feit dat die klaer ontneem is van 'n voorwerp wat hy aan sy persoon gedra het, stel nie per se roof daar nie. Hierdie geval kan onderskei word van die gevalle waar die handsak uit die fisiese greep van die slagoffer gegryp word. Of waar 'n ketting om die nek van die slagoffer geruk word. In daardie geval word die geweld wel gerig teenoor die liggaam van die slagoffer. The underlined words are the emphasis of ELS, J.
10 10 It would seem to me, therefore, that the Transvaal Court supports the remarks of RUMPFF, CJ and THIRION, J. What THIRION, J said in S v SITHOLE at 1188A was the following. It is not violence of whatever nature that suffices as an element of robbery. Attempts have been made from time to time to define or circumscribe the nature of the violence required for robbery. Thus Hunt says in SA Criminal Law and Procedure vol 2 at 644 that, in order to support a conviction for robbery, the violence must have been used with the intention that it would overcome resistance and induce submission to the taking and must have had that effect. Violence which is not employed with that intention and which does not have that effect, Hunt refers to as incidental violence or ex post facto violence which, he says, is not the kind of violence which will support a conviction for robbery. I have quoted this passage since it is important to understand the context and the criticism by NGWENYA, J in S v MATI of THIRION, J s remarks. THIRION, J was, on my reading, not referring to degrees of violence when he said that it is not violence of whatever nature that suffices as an element of robbery. In referring to HUNT s remarks about violence having to be used with the intention of overcoming resistance and not being merely incidental or ex post facto violence, it seems
11 11 that THIRION, J meant that that kind of violence would not suffice as an element of robbery. NGWENYA, J seems, with respect, to have understood the remark of THIRION, J to mean that only violence of a level of seriousness would ground a robbery charge. NGWENYA, J immediately goes on to deal with S v SITHOLE and S v WITBOOI in the Cape Court as cases endorsing the obiter dictum in S v MOGALA, where the Court held that even the slight force in bag snatching would be sufficient to constitute robbery, and then adds : To do so in my view is to equate force with violence. To this extent I regretfully and respectfully disagree with both judgments. S v WITBOOI, 1984[1] SA 242 was a decision of two judges of this court, normally binding upon later Courts in the Division. The Cape Court agreed with the decision in SITHOLE that for handbag snatching to amount to robbery, it is sufficient if the culprit intentionally uses force in order to overcome the hold which the victim has on the bag for the purpose of ordinarily carrying or holding it.
12 12 In the latest edition of HIEMSTRA, Suid-Afrikaanse Strafproses, 6th Ed. at 662, the writers remark that Daar was al haarklowery oor die vraag of handsakgrypery roof is dan wel diefstal, aangesien die slagoffer nie weerstand bied nie en die daad onverwags is. Die verskil tussen die sakkeroller en die handsakgryper is dat eersgenoemde met lis te werk gaan en die ander met geweld. Hoe weinig ook die liggaamsaantasting by handsakgrypery mog gewees het, daar is geweld en die misdaad is roof (S v MOGALA, 1978[2] SA 412 [A]). Dieselfde is beslis in S v WITBOOI, 1984[1] SA 242 [K] en ook in MATJEKE, 1980[4] SA 267 [B]. In S v MATI, NGWENYA, J then refers to what J R L MILTON says in South African Criminal Law and Procedure, Vol. 2 3 rd Ed. At 651, namely that the term violence in describing robbery, must be understood as a term of art meaning no more than the use of force of any significant degree. One is not, of course, dealing with a statutory offence, but a common law crime with Roman roots in our system. On the same page of MILTON s work the author points out that the word violence is traditionally used to describe this element of the conduct of an accused robber, but that confusion is possible, since conceptually, violence denotes the use of a particular degree of force, namely that
13 13 characterized by the exertion of great physical force or strength, done or performed with intense or unusual force. [Oxford English Dictionary, sv violence. MILTON, continuing, points out that it is interesting to note that it was concluded that the English Theft Act of 1968 altered the previous law when it redefined robbery as involving the use of force in order to obtain the property. The word force in this context is construed as involving some physical strength so that under that Act theft becomes robbery where it is accomplished by anything that can realistically be called force, of whatever degree. MILTON then deals with the application of the violence criterion in English and American law, where it was held that force used by a pickpocket or bag snatcher did not constitute robbery, presumably on the reasoning that the indirect or incidental force required for these purposes did not amount to violence. That would be a conclusion easily reached if one was thinking of the dictionary definition of the word violence. As has been shown above, a similar principle prevailed in South African law until the judgment in S v MOGALA in 1978 and other cases, after which the view developed that even the slight force involved in bag snatching is sufficient to constitute robbery.
14 14 MILTON continues : This suggests that South African Law has come to regard force rather than violence as the defining element of robbery. Given that an assault can be committed by using only the slightest degree of force, this view would be consistent with the concept that robbery is theft accompanied by an assault. In Principles of Criminal Law by JONATHAN BURCHELL AND JOHN MILTON, 3 rd Ed. 2005, the matter is dealt with at p.819. It is said that robbery consists of two acti rei, one being the taking of control of the property, the other the act of applying (or threatening to apply) force to the person of the victim. A passage in a judgment by KUMLEBEN, J in S v DLAMINI, 1975[2] SA 524 [D] at 527 A-B is then quoted as follows : The violence [assault] and the theft are joint features of one crime. The key considerations justifying a conviction of this composite crime are proof that the assault and the theft formed part of a continuous
15 15 transaction and that the assault was a means by which the unlawful possession was obtained. This passage certainly supports the earlier view of MILTON as to the South African courts coming to regard force or assault as defining words rather than violence in robbery. BURCHELL then goes on at p.820 to deal with various matters like the causal connection of the violence to the theft, and then comes to a discussion of S v MATI at p.821. A passage from the judgment is then quoted on p.821, but the comments in the textbook are out of context. As NGWENYA, J said in S v MATI at 328D, MILTON had made certain other remarks under the heading Public Violence. These indeed appear at p.85 of his work1, where in the context of public violence MILTON says that that crime is committed only where actual violence or the threat of it is used and that there is a difference between force and violence. MILTON does say that force connotes the application of energy to an obstacle with the view to moving it, while violence involves the exercise of physical force so as to inflict injury or damage to persons or property. He continues as follows at p.85 : 1 South African Criminal Law and Procedure, Vol II, 3 rd Ed.
16 16 Thus the concept of violence has connotations of vigorous hostility and aggression which are not necessarily a feature of force. He continues to say that the crime, i.e. public violence, is not committed by the use of mere force and that Herein lies, it is submitted, the distinction between lawful public protest and unlawful public violence. Public protest may in its more physical manifestations involve the use of force. [See S v Mlotshwa, 1989[4] SA 787 [W], where force and verbal remonstrations by picketers did not constitute public violence.] It is clear, in my view, that MILTON was not there dealing with any difference between violence and force in the context of what conduct on the part of an accused robber was required to be shown, but was dealing, under the heading of Public Violence, with something quite different. NGWENYA, J went on at 328F to say that The fact that the perpetrator acted swiftly or took his victim by surprise does not in my view elevate mere force to violence.
17 17 NGWENYA, J went on to hold that where there is doubt in a Court s mind as to whether violence has been shown beyond reasonable doubt, surely, in that instance, the Court should find that the crime committed is that of theft. I cannot agree with that approach in the light of the authorities which I have enumerated above, since it is clear that any force applied to the person of a victim, however slight, is sufficient to constitute robbery. As stated in the Annual Survey of South African Law, 2002 at 827, it always depends on the facts. Of course, if it is necessary for the accused to push the complainant or use some other mild violence, the court should find that robbery and not theft has occurred but, on the facts of Mati and in similar bagsnatching scenarios, it should find the reverse. The remarks of RUMPFF, CJ in S v MOGALA, even if obiter, are of great persuasive force and have been followed in this Division, as in other Divisions, in S v WITBOOI [supra]. In my view, the physical grabbing of a bag or a cellphone out of a complainant s hand constitutes a physical intervention necessary for the dispossession,
18 18 and whether one calls it force or violence, one has a physical act committed against the person of another. This, in my view, complies with the definition of robbery. The grabbing of the cellphone was in itself the violent act, committed against the person of the complainant. To grab is to seize suddenly and roughly [Concise Oxford Dictionary, 2002]. In my view, the violence in S v MATI, as in the case before us, occurred the moment the grabbing took place. Just as the victim in S v MATI was holding the cellphone which had been grabbed, the victim in the present case was holding the cellphone when it was grabbed out of her hand. S v WITBOOI also concerned the case of a woman who had her bag pulled from under her arm by a rapid movement which caused her to lose her grip. VIVIER, J [VAN HEERDEN, J concurring] followed the view of THIRION, J, that for handbag snatching to amount to robbery it is sufficient if the culprit intentionally uses force in order to overcome the hold which the victim has on the bag for the purpose of ordinarily carrying or holding it. In my view, exactly the same applies to a cellphone grabbed out of a hand.
19 19 At p. 656 of his work, MILTON also refers to the fact that S v MOGALA was subsequently adopted with approval in a number of Provincial Division decisions, and he adds and expresses what is the preferred approach in this regard. There follows the quotation from S v SITHOLE at 1190 B-C, which I have already used. See too S v MOHAMED, 1999[1] SACR 287 [OPA] at 290, where a Full Bench held that the snatching of a necklace from the complainant s neck constitutes robbery, since an assault had taken place. In S v GQALOWE, 1996[2] SACR 172 [E], MULLINS, J approved SITHOLE, MOFOKENG and WITBOOI, but distinguished these cases because, in the matter before him, money was pulled out of a back pocket by stealth, not violence. As MULLINS, J said, that case had all the elements of pickpocketing, not robbery. In the result, I am satisfied that the decision in S v MATI is incorrect and that the earlier decisions to which I have referred correctly state the legal position. It follows that the Magistrate was correct to convict the Appellant in this matter. The appeal is dismissed, and the conviction and sentence (against
20 20 which there was no appeal) are confirmed. J G FOXCROFT LE GRANGE, AJ : I agree. A LE GRANGE ---ooo0ooo---
21 21 REPORTABLE JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION CASE NO : A205/2005 In the matter between : SAMUEL SALMANS [SALMONS] Appellant and
22 22 THE STATE Respondent Counsel for Appellant : Att. R Cloete Instructed by : Legal Aid Advocate for Defendant : Adv M Pothier Instructed by : State Attorney Dates of Hearing : 4 th November, 2005 Date of Judgment : 10 th November, 2005
[1] The Appellant, accused 2, is a 25 year old man, who was charged with a. co-accused, accused no. 1, in the Thaba N chu Regional Court on two
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Appeal No. : A13/2002 In the appeal between: MICHAEL MOLUSI Appellant and THE STATE Respondent CORAM: C.J. MUSI J et MILTON AJ
More informationVAN ZYL, J et MOCUMIE, J. [1] The accused was charged with housebreaking with intent to. commit an offence unknown to the prosecutor.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the review between:- THE STATE versus OTHNIEL SELLO MAIEANE Review No. : 92/2008 CORAM: VAN ZYL, J et MOCUMIE, J JUDGMENT BY:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) CA&R No: Review No: Date Delivered: In the matter between: JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION) CA&R No: Review No: 020558 Date Delivered: In the matter between: The State and Nataniel Mondo JUDGMENT PLASKET AJ: [1] On 16 October 2002, the
More information[1] These three cases came to us on automatic review. The. accused were separately arrested and charged. They appeared
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the review between:- THE STATE versus Review No. : 575/08 Review No. : 721/08 Review No. : 761/08 DINEO ANNAH VAN WYK MORAKE
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Review number. : 508/2010 In the review matter between: THE STATE and LEETO MAKEKA CORAM: MUSI, J et MOCUMIE, J JUDGMENT BY: C.J. MUSI, J DELIVERED
More informationREVIEW JUDGMENT: 23 APRIL 2015
Republic of South Africa IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) [REPORTABLE] High Court Ref No: 15248 Magistrate Case No: 5/1595/2015 Review No: 07/2015 In the matter between:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION: BLOEMFONTEIN
In the matter between: THE STATE And IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION: BLOEMFONTEIN Review No: 191/2014 PHELLO MXHAKA CORAM: MOCUMIE J et MOENG, AJ JUDGMENT: MOENG, AJ DELIVERED ON:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Case No.: A183/2013 DANNY MEKGOE Applicant and THE STATE Respondent CORAM: DAFFUE, J et NAIDOO, J JUDGMENT BY:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Appeal No.: A125/2013 In the matter between: SILAS NTULINI Applicant and THE REGIONAL COURT MAGISTRATE, First Respondent BLOEMFONTEIN
More informationHIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN In the matter between:- Case Number : 99/2014 THE STATE and RETHABILE NTSHONYANE THABANG NTSHONYANE CORAM: DAFFUE, J et MURRAY, AJ JUDGMENT
More informationNORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Regional Magistrates Circulate to Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO NORTHERN CAPE HIGH COURT, KIMBERLEY Saakno: / Case number: K/S 44/06 Datum
More informationUITSPRAAK IN DIE NOORD GAUTENG HOE HOF PRETORIA (REPUBL1EK VAN SUID-AFRIKA) ) seres SAAKNOMMER: 38798/2006. In die saak tussen: Applikant
IN DIE NOORD GAUTENG HOE HOF PRETORIA (REPUBL1EK VAN SUID-AFRIKA) In die saak tussen: VERONICA KRETSCHMER SAAKNOMMER: 38798/2006 Applikant en 3ROLL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT (EDMS) 3PK (REGISTRASIENOMMER 199S/C15132/07)
More informationFILING SHEET FOR HIGH COURT, BISHO JUDGMENT MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY & ANO. [1] Case Number: 317/05
FILING SHEET FOR HIGH COURT, BISHO JUDGMENT PARTIES: LUMKA TWALO vs MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY & ANO [1] Case Number: 317/05 DATE HEARD: 26 November 2008 JUDGMENT DELIVERED: 7 January 2009 JUDGE: Y
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) PETER MOHLABA. and WINSTON NKOPODI JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: Case No.: Civil Appeal 3/2003 PETER MOHLABA and WINSTON NKOPODI JUDGMENT HENDRICKS AJ: INTRODUCTION This is
More informationThe accused in this case is a 20 year old first offender who was arraigned. in the Magistrate s Court at Odendaalsrus on 4 counts of housebreaking
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the review between: THE STATE and MPHO BOCHELI Review No.: 619/2004 CORAM: MALHERBE JP DELIVERED ON: 1 JULY 2004 The accused
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the review between:- THE STATE and Review No. : 344/2010 ABEL GEORGE RAHLAU CORAM: RAMPAI, J et KRUGER, J JUDGMENT BY: RAMPAI, J DELIVERED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) REVIEW JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CA125/05 In the matter between: THE STATE and MOSIMANEGAPE PHADI REVIEW JUDGMENT ZWIEGELAAR AJ: [1] The Accused, who conducted his
More informationJORDAAN NO AND ANOTHER v VERWEY 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) 2002 (1) SA p643. Citation 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) Case No CA 271/2000. Court Eastern Cape Division
JORDAAN NO AND ANOTHER v VERWEY 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) 2002 (1) SA p643 Citation 2002 (1) SA 643 (E) Case No CA 271/2000 Court Eastern Cape Division Judge Erasmus J and Sandi AJ Heard March 26, 2001 Judgment
More informationHANCKE, J et MOCUMIE, J. [1] This matter came before me on automatic review in terms of. section 302 read with 304 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the review between:- THE STATE versus M G K Review No. : 13/08 CORAM: HANCKE, J et MOCUMIE, J JUDGMENT BY: MOCUMIE, J DELIVERED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO Review No. : 62/2017 THE STATE versus TEBOHO
More information2 No GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 16 SEPTEMBER 2010 Act No, 5 of 2010 SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AMENDMENT ACT GENERAL EXPLANATORY NOTE: Words in bold type
Vol. 543 Cape Town, 16 September2010 No. 33562 Kaapstad, THE PRESIDENCY DIE PRESIDENSIE No. 830 16 September 2010 Nr. 830 16 September 2010 It is hereby notified that the President has assented to the
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In matters between: Review No: 354/2010 The State vs. Motlatsi Monyane; The State vs. Leeto J Monyane and The State vs. Moholo A. Ramateletse
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) [REPORTABLE] Case No: A59/15 JUDGMENT: 22 MARCH 2016
In the matter between: IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) [REPORTABLE] Case No: A59/15 MOSES SILO Appellant vs THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT: 22 MARCH 2016 HENNEY J Introduction
More informationABSOLOM MALINGA APPELLANT. and
1987-05- 27 ABSOLOM MALINGA APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT /ccc CASE NO. 388/86 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between ABSOLOM MALINGA APPELLANT and THE STATE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN) REVIEW NUMBER: 11/16 CA&R: 137/2016 Date delivered: 14/06/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN) REVIEW NUMBER: 11/16 CA&R: 137/2016 Date delivered: 14/06/2016 In the matter between: THE STATE and ANDILE MALGAS REVIEW JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION) JUDGMENT
REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION) In the matter between : CASE NO. 15732/07 HEPBURN, JOHN DONALD APPLICANT Applicant And MILLER, JACQUELINE SIMONE RESPONDENT VAN
More informationGovernment Gazette Staatskoerant
Government Gazette Staatskoerant REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIEK VAN SUID AFRIKA Regulation Gazette No. 10847 10177 Regulasiekoerant Vol. 637 13 July Julie 2018 No. 41771 N.B. The Government Printing
More informationIs s 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 finally tailored? Prof Francois du Toit. FISA Conference. September 2012
Is s 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 finally tailored? Prof Francois du Toit FISA Conference September 2012 John H Langbein, Substantial compliance with the Wills Act 1975 Harvard Law Review 489 498: What
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WITWATERSRAND LOCAL DIVISION) REPORTABLE CASE NO: 04/9610 In the matter between: DITEDU. DINEO ROSLYN Plaintiff and TAYOB, YOUSHA Defendant JUDGMENT GOLDSTEIN J: [1]
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: LEON BOSMAN N.O. IZAK
More informationEASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN REVIEW NO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN REVIEW NO. 20170040 Delivered: 9 May 2017 In the matter between: THE STATE and ANDA NKALA Accused REVIEW JUDGMENT Bloem J. [1] The accused
More informationVAN ZYL, J et MOCUMIE, J. [1] This matter came before me on automatic review in terms of. section 302 read with 304 of the Criminal Procedure Act, No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the case between: Case No.: 209/2008 THE STATE and JIM HENDRICKS CORAM: VAN ZYL, J et MOCUMIE, J JUDGEMENT: MOCUMIE, J DELIVERED
More informationDEPARTEMENT VAN OPENBARE WERKE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No. : 7382/08 In the matter between:- RUWACON (EDMS) BPK Applicant versus DEPARTEMENT VAN OPENBARE WERKE Respondent CORAM: H.M. MUSI,
More information1] On 11 August 2011 the accused appeared before the Magistrate,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE GRAHAMSTOWN) In the matter between: Review No.: 110154 CA&R No.: 296/2012 Date delivered: 17 September 2012 THE STATE and FREDLIN JOE-WAYNE DIDLOFT R E V
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [CAPE OF GOODHOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION]
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [CAPE OF GOODHOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION] REPORTABLE HIGH COURT REF. NO.: 04 03742 MAGISTRATE S SERIAL NO.: 30/04 CASE NO. LG 146/2004 In the matter between: THE STATE
More information141/94 REPORTABLE CASE NO. 246/93 EB IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: and
141/94 REPORTABLE CASE NO. 246/93 EB IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: MINISTER OF LAW AND ORDER APPELLANT and A M KADIR RESPONDENT CORAM: HEFER, NESTADT,
More informationLL Case No 247/1989 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA APPELLATE DIVISION. In the matter between: and. VAN HEERDEN, SMALBERGER JJA et PREISS AJA
LL Case No 247/1989 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA APPELLATE DIVISION In the matter between: THOMAS MAMITSA Appellant and JULIUS MOSES KHUMALO Respondent CORAM: VAN HEERDEN, SMALBERGER JJA et PREISS
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. RAMPAI, AJP et SNELLENBURG, AJ
THE STATE versus FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Review No. : 56/2012 CLIFFORD MZIMKHULU MOTAUNG CORAM: RAMPAI, AJP et SNELLENBURG, AJ JUDGMENT BY: RAMPAI, AJP DELIVERED ON:
More informationI N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F S O U T H A F R I C A ( C A P E O F G O O D H O P E P R O V I N C I A L D I V I S I O N )
REPORTABLE I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F S O U T H A F R I C A ( C A P E O F G O O D H O P E P R O V I N C I A L D I V I S I O N ) In the matter between: High Court Ref. No.: 061488/06 Magistrate s Serial
More informationIn the matter between: Case No: 607/2010
REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 607/2010 ANTONIE LE ROUX Applicant And H. PIETERSE N.O 1 st Respondent THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
More informationIN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J768/98. In the matter between: FREE STATE CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINE. Applicant.
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Held at Johannesburg) Case No: J768/98 In the matter between: FREE STATE CONSOLIDATED GOLD MINE Applicant and B M JAMMY First Respondent NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held at RANDBURG CASE NUMBER : LCC9R/98 In the matter concerning M P DU TOIT Plaintiff and LEWAK LE KAY alias LEWAK LANGTREY Defendant JUDGMENT MOLOTO J : [1] The
More informationR E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T. applicant also being tried on a further charge of indecent assault. It was alleged
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (SOUTH EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION) In the matter between Case No.: CC15/02 Date available: LIONEL FOURIE First Applicant TONY McCARTHY Second Applicant NATHAN NIEKERK
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION)
Case No 275/89 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: THE MINISTER OF LAW AND ORDER Appellant AND ABDUL AZIZ KADER Respondent CORAM: HOEXTER, E M GROSSKOPF, STEYN,
More information[1] These proceedings were concerned with an application for. leave to appeal. The applicant who was also the applicant in
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Application nr: LA73/2004 In the matter between: MAIM GAMUR (PTY) LTD Applicant and AFGRI OPERATIONS LTD Respondent JUDGMENT: RAMPAI
More informationRIKA MADELYN VILLET Accused REVIEW JUDGMENT. [1] This is a review in the ordinary course. The learned magistrate was, in
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNSESBURG High Court Ref. No. 109/2009 Magistrate s Ref. No. 09/2009 Review Case No. DH 712/2009 THE STATE versus RIKA MADELYN VILLET Accused REVIEW JUDGMENT MEYER, J. [1]
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case number: 7257/2015 Date: 30 August 2016 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/NO
More informationHIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) ..._...,... SIGNATURE JUDGMENT
,, HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) ( 1) (2) (3) REPORTABLE: >E5/NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: )'.,B'lNO REVISED, DATE C :J(l_l..._....,... SIGNATURE Case no. A170/2013 In the
More informationDoreen Lame Serumula. Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment ofthe LLM degree at the University of Stellenbosch
THE RELEVANCE OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN SECTIONAL TITLES LAW IN INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE SECTIONAL TITLES LEGISLATION OF BOTSWANA: AN ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SCHEMES
More information2016 SEPTEMBER 16 CASE No 802/2015
1 S v DW NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY KGOMO JP and MAMOSEBO J 2016 SEPTEMBER 16 CASE No 802/2015 Mamosebo J (Kgomo JP concurring): [1] This is a special review in terms of s 304A of the Criminal Procedure
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) Case number 20762/2006 Date: 19 June 2009 In the matter between: EDNA BONFIGLIO Plaintiff and ATB CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS (SA) Defendant JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationCase No: 2142/2009. FIRST RAND BANK LIMITED t/a WESBANK DUAL DISCOUNT WHOLESALERS CC
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, DURBAN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 2142/2009 In the matter between: FIRST RAND BANK LIMITED t/a WESBANK PLAINTIFF and DUAL DISCOUNT WHOLESALERS CC DEFENDANT JUDGMENT
More informationIn the matter between:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YESINO Of Interest to other Judges: YESINO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Case number: 1417/2016
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN [Reportable] High Court Ref. No. : 14552 Case No. : WRC 85/2009 In the matter between: ANTHONY KOK Applicant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) JUDGMENT. The defendant applies to court for an order in terms of which the plaintiff is
I IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT) Case number: 56513/2008 Date: 31 March 2011 DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE (1} REPORTABLE: Y S?NO (2} OF INTEREST TO OTHERS jy^esi^xk/no
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 576/11 Reportable In the matter between:- RADITSHEGO GODFREY MASHILO MINISTER OF POLICE FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT and JACOBUS MICHAEL
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AR238/08 THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY First Appellant THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Second Appellant
More informationLEBOGANG GODFREY MOGOPODI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the case between: Case No.: 122/2008 LEBOGANG GODFREY MOGOPODI Applicant and THE MEMBE OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF THE FREE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CHRISTOPHER EDWARD MARTIN DAMON FOR THE APPLICANT : ADV.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) REPORTABLE Case No: 1601/09 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER EDWARD MARTIN DAMON Applicant and SAHRON DAMON BFP ATTORNEYS THE
More informationBP IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice DE WET, J.P.
BP. - 18 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice DE WET, J.P. In the matter of: THE STATE vs. THE NATIONAL HIGH COMMAND & OTHERS 29 TH OCTOBER,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN Reportable: YES/NO Of Interest to other Judges: YES/NO Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO In the matter between: Case No.: R84/2017 THE
More informationIN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held at DURBAN on 31 October 2001 CASE NUMBER: LCC 40/01 Before: Gildenhuys AJ Decided on: 7 November 2001 In the interlocutory application of E M MDUNGE AND OTHERS
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (PRETORIA) CASE No.: 27705/06. In the matter between: PRINSLOO R. PLAINTIFF. and BARNYARD THEATRE FIRST DEFENDANT
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (PRETORIA) CASE No.: 27705/06 In the matter between: PRINSLOO R. PLAINTIFF and BARNYARD THEATRE FIRST DEFENDANT OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO (SA) LTD SECOND DEFENDANT JUDGMENT
More information/15. Four new legal opinions have also been posted on our website. They are:
18 2-2015 Newsletter Nuusbrief 1/15 National Nasionaal Dear Members / Geagte Lede This newsletter deals with / Hierdie nuusbrief handel oor: New legal opinions to assist members / Nuwe regsmenings tot
More informationMR THIBILE ELVIS SEHLABAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In matter between:- Case No. : 4820/2008 MR THIBILE ELVIS SEHLABAKA Applicant And ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Respondent HEARD ON: 23 SEPTEMBER
More informationGovernment Gazette Staatskoerant
Government Gazette Staatskoerant REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIEK VAN SUID AFRIKA Regulation Gazette No. 10177 Regulasiekoerant Vol. 618 9 December Desember 2016 No. 40487 N.B. The Government Printing
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) FRANCOIS JOHANNES WIUM JUDGMENT DELIVERED 28 MAY 2104
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case no: 4567/2009 In the matter between: FRANCOIS JOHANNES WIUM Plaintiff and FREDERICK ARIJS Defendant JUDGMENT
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref No: 13858 Goodwood Case No: C1658/2012 In the matter between: STATE And RAYMOND TITUS ACCUSED Coram: BINNS-WARD & ROGERS
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref No: 14108 Vredendal Case No: 864/13 In the matter between: STATE And JANNIE MOSTERT ACCUSED Coram: DLODLO & ROGERS JJ Delivered:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION. In the matter between: FAIROAKS INVESTMENT HOLDI GS (PTY) LTD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION Date: 02/02/2007 Case no: 9858/2005 UNREPORTABLE In the matter between: FAIROAKS INVESTMENT HOLDI GS (PTY) LTD WILLOW FALLS ESTATE Case no:
More informationGovernment Gazette Staatskoerant
Government Gazette Staatskoerant REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIEK VAN SUID AFRIKA Regulation Gazette No. 10177 Regulasiekoerant Vol. 633 23 March Maart 2018 No. 41522 N.B. The Government Printing Works
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG THE STATE AND THABANG LERUMO THSEPISO MASANGO BAFANA MATANA NKOSINATHI MTSHWENI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG HIGH COURT REF: 08/2017 In the matter between:- THE STATE AND THABANG LERUMO THSEPISO MASANGO BAFANA MATANA NKOSINATHI MTSHWENI CALVIN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA ITRANSV AAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) 09/05/2005 CASE NO: 6543/2004
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA ITRANSV AAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) (1) REPORTABLE NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3), REVISED. 09/05/2005 CASE NO: 6543/2004 In
More informationRAMPAI, J. [1] These proceedings were concerned with an application for. leave to appeal. The applicant who was the defendant in the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case Nr: LA50/04 (ex 1857/2001 In the matter between: ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Applicant and ANDREW HUGH ARTHUR DALY Respondent CORAM:
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: and
Case No 385/97 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: and THE STATE Respondant CORAM : VAN HEERDEN, HEFER et SCOTT JJA HEARD : 21 MAY 1998 DELIVERED : 27 MAY 1998 JUDGEMENT SCOTT
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. LESLIE MILDENHALL TROLLIP t/a PROPERTY SOLUTIONS. HANCKE, J et FISCHER, AJ
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the appeal between:- Appeal No. : A297/10 JOHANNES STEPHANUS LATEGAN MARLET LATEGAN First Appellant Second Appellant and LESLIE MILDENHALL
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) Case No.: 1116/2006. In the case between: ALL GOOD THINGS 149 CC.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (ORANGE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the case between: Case No.: 1116/2006 ALL GOOD THINGS 149 CC Plaintiff and WASCON SIVIEL CC WOUTER WASSERMAN 2 nd Defendant
More informationMALITABA REBECCA PHOKONTSI LIKELELI ELIZABETH SEBOLAI
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the appeal between: MALITABA REBECCA PHOKONTSI LIKELELI ELIZABETH SEBOLAI Case No.: A199/2009 1 st Appellant 2 nd Appellant and KHATSE EVELYN
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTRN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN HENCETRADE 15 (PTY) LTD TUDOR HOTEL BRASSERIE & BAR (PTY) LTD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTRN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN Case number: 15275/2015 In the matter between: HENCETRADE 15 (PTY) LTD Applicant And TUDOR HOTEL BRASSERIE & BAR (PTY) LTD Respondent JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION] NOT REPORTABLE CASE NO: 32140/2002 DATE: 14/3/2005 FREITAN (SA) (PTY) LTD JUDGMENT
b) c) IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA [TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION] NOT REPORTABLE CASE NO: 32140/2002 In the matter between: DATE: 14/3/2005 FREITAN (SA) (PTY) LTD PLAINTIFF and KINGTEX MARKETING
More informationMZOXOLO MABHUTI ZENZILE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN REPORTABLE Before the Hon Mr Justice NJ Yekiso In the matter between: THE STATE Case No: SS106/08 and MZOXOLO MABHUTI ZENZILE Accused
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA REPORTABLE CASE NO: 363/2005 In the matter between THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS KWAZULU-NATAL APPELLANT and P RESPONDENT CORAM: HARMS, STREICHER, MTHIYANE
More informationGIDEON JAKOBUS DU PLESSIS APPLICANT WILLEM JACOBUS DU PLESSIS N.O SECOND RESPONDENT JUDGMENT
Reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH) Case no: 2990/10 Date delivered: 29 October 2010 In the matter between: GIDEON JAKOBUS DU PLESSIS APPLICANT and WILLEM JACOBUS
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA HELD AT LOBATSE CLCLB In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER KETLWAELETSWE And THE STATE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA HELD AT LOBATSE CLCLB-066-06 In the matter between: CHRISTOPHER KETLWAELETSWE And THE STATE APPELLANT RESPONDENT Mr. Attorney P.A. Kgalemang for the Appellant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION CASE: 504/07. In the matter between: MORETELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY APPLICANT.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION CASE: 504/07 In the matter between: MORETELE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY APPLICANT and NKADIMENG BOTLHALE TRAINING AND CONSULTANCY CC RESPONDENT
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CORNELIUS JOHANNES HEUNIS
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Reportable Case No: 196/2017 APPELLANT and CORNELIUS JOHANNES HEUNIS
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN High Court Review Ref: 18509/2018 Riversdal Magistrates Court case no. SB295/16 Mossel Bay Magistrates Court Special Review (C.M. Maseti)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
CA 301/2001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) IN THE MATTER BETWEEN: MICHELE COLAVITA APPLICANT AND SAMSTOCK PORTFOLIO PROPERTIES (PTY LIMITED RESPONDENT JUDGMENT FOR
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 362/11 In the matter between Reportable MUSA DLAMINI APPELLANT and THE STATE RESPONDENT Neutral citation: Dlamini v S (362/11) [2012] ZASCA
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the review between:- THE STATE and SIFISO ALFRED TSHABALALA Review No. : 278/2011 CORAM: MOLEMELA, J et KUBUSHI, AJ DELIVERED ON: 1 SEPTEMBER
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
NOT REPORTABLE IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT. PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) CASE NO: 39248/2011 DATE: 08/02/2013 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN LEONARD GREYLING CARL GREYLING First Plaintiff Second Plaintiff
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA CARLLO ANDRIAS GAGIANO
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the review between: Review No. : 4860/07 CARLLO ANDRIAS GAGIANO Plaintiff and CARRLO ANDRIAS GAGIANO (SNR) RACHEL MAGDALENA GAGIANO THERESA
More informationREVIEW JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 29 AUGUST 2003
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) HIGH COURT REF NO: 1144/2003 CASE No: D997/2002 MAGISTRATE S SERIAL No: 105/2003 In the matter
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
1 Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY) In the
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- THE STATE and Review No. : 160/2012 SIFISO TSHABALALA CORAM: KRUGER, J et DAFFUE, J JUDGMENT BY: DAFFUE, J DELIVERED
More informationThe Constitutional Property Clause and. Immaterial Property Interests
The Constitutional Property Clause and Immaterial Property Interests Mikhalien Kellerman Dissertation presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Laws at Stellenbosch
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN) 6018/11 In the matter between: JAN DANIEL THERON Plaintiff and THE MINISTER IN THE WESTERN CAPE Defendant DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND
More informationElectronic copy available at:
520 2014 (77) THRHR policy issues for consideration on the basis of the specific facts of the case. After all, that is what rules, such as the par delictum rule, are there for. CJ PRETORIUS KA SEANEGO
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG. V. V. A. Applicant. V. T. L. Respondent DATE OF HEARING : 05 SEPTEMBER 2015
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION,
More information