Cookies help us to understand you better. Browse on or click to
Lexis Nexis
-
In Democratic Alliance v National Commissioner of Correctional Services and Others [2022] 2 All SA 134 (GP), urgent application for a declaration of unlawfulness against the decision granting Mr Zuma medical parole under s 75(5) of the Correctional Services Act. -
In Forum de Monitoria do Orçamento v Chang [2022] 2 All SA 157 (GJ), competing extradition requests, review of Minister’s decision, whether rational based on the relevant facts, and in conformity with the doctrine of legality. -
In S v Zuma and Another [2022] 1 All SA 533 (KZP), ‘title to prosecute’ - the test in respect of the apprehension of bias in a prosecutor does not apply to a judicial officer. Other grounds apply for a substantive application. -
In Rohde v S [2022] 1 All SA 504 (WCC) an apprehension or fear of an adverse order is not the basis for recusal, nor were other grounds relied on by the applicant, individually or cumulatively. -
In Mbhamali v S [2022] 1 All SA 488 (KZD), practice of child marriages does not supersede the laws and the Constitution of the country. The fact that a child might have consented to such an act is no defence. -
In S v Makayi [2021] 2 All SA 907 (ECB), charges must adequately reflect the nature, extent and seriousness of the criminal conduct, enable the case to be presented in a clear and simple way, and provide the court with an appropriate basis for the sentence requested. -
In Doorewaard and Another v S [2021] 1 All SA 311 (SCA): Appeal dealing with the death of a 15-year-old boy (the deceased). The state and the defence presented mutually destructive versions of the circumstances surrounding the boy’s death. -
With the commencement of the Cybercrimes Act on the 1st of December, it is now a crime to send WhatsApp and other messages, and to create social media posts that threaten to harm others, or which result in violence or damage to property. -
In Ndlovu and Others v S [2021] 1 All SA 538 (ECG) whether the trial court, acting in terms of s 35(5) of the Constitution, correctly allowed physical evidence found as a result of the unlawful search of a premises to become part of the evidential material placed before it by the state.