Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa

The Supreme Court of Appeal is, except in respect of certain labour and competition matters, the second highest court in South Africa. In terms of the Constitution, it is purely an appeal court and may decide only appeals and issues connected with appeals. (Banner image by Ben Bezuidenhout).

Physical address

Cnr Mirriam Makeba & President Brand Streets, Bloemfontein, Free State, 9301

Visit website

https://www.supremecourtofappeal.org.za/

13 judgments

Advanced search

All years

All months

Filters

Sort by:

13 judgments

Citation	Judgment date
December 1963
Motsoahae and Others v S (255/63) [1963] ZASCA 11 (7 December 1963) The appellants' murder convictions were upheld; indictment particulars sufficient and accomplice evidence corroborated. Criminal law — Summary trial under s.152(bis) — adequacy of particularisation of indictment; accomplice evidence — requirement of corroboration and what facts may constitute corroboration; admissibility of confessional/statements — duress contested and rejection; convictions for murder upheld where accused acted pursuant to instructions of banned organisation.	7 December 1963
Southern Insurance Association Limited v Human (99/63) [1963] ZASCA 6 (7 December 1963) Appeal dismissed: both drivers negligent; 60/40 apportionment (motor-cycle/lorry) upheld, lorry driver liable (with costs). Road-traffic negligence — duty to ensure safe crossing — contributory negligence by motor-cycle rider — apportionment of fault under Apportionment of Damages Act 1956 — appellate review of credibility and factual findings.	7 December 1963
Xhego and Others v S (188/63) [1963] ZASCA 8 (7 December 1963) Trial judge properly admitted confessions and fairly assessed accomplice identification and coercion allegations; appeals dismissed. Criminal law — Admissibility of confessions — voluntariness and onus (s.244) — allegations of police coercion (electric shocks) — medical examination evidence; Criminal law — Accomplice evidence — cautionary rule and corroboration; Identification evidence in low light; Threats/coercion by political organisation and extenuating circumstances.	7 December 1963
Panovka and Others v Veysie (109/63) [1963] ZASCA 10 (5 December 1963) Whether a defendant pleading set‑offs must prove them and whether absolution could be granted for an unpleaded repudiation. Civil procedure – plea and onus – set‑off pleaded by defendant places burden of proof on defendant; absolution from instance inappropriate where defence of repudiation is unpleaded and evidence does not establish unequivocal repudiation; settlement obligations interpreted as unconditional; approbation and reprobation considered but not established on record.	5 December 1963
De Jager v Grunder (26/63) [1963] ZASCA 9 (2 Desember 1963) Whether fraudulent misrepresentation in a multi‑item exchange must be measured by aggregate value comparison or by proven causal patrimonial loss. Delict — Fraudulent misrepresentation in exchange contracts — Measure of patrimonial (delictual) damages — No single universal formula; must prove actual patrimonial loss causally linked to misrepresentation; where misrepresentation affects part of composite transaction assess loss as to that part. Contractual payment — accounting for authorised deductions. Gratuitous promise/donation — unenforceable if not in required written form.	2 December 1963
September 1963
Gathercole v S (36/63) [1963] ZASCA 7 (27 September 1963) Custodians obliged to refund trust clients may claim compensation under s.357(1) despite confusio of trust funds. Criminal procedure – s.357(1) Criminal Procedure Act – compensation to injured party – trust money and confusio – custodians’ liability to refund clients suffices to show loss of property 'belonging' to claimant.	27 September 1963
Van Heerden en 'n Ander v Moolman (74/63) [1963] ZASCA 5 (24 September 1963)	24 September 1963
Viljoen v S (118/63) [1963] ZASCA 2 (14 September 1963) Appeal upheld: evidence showed appellant acted in lawful self-defence, so conviction and sentence were set aside. Criminal law – self-defence (noodweer) – adequacy of reasonable fear and surrounding circumstances – whether involuntary discharge negates self-defence – appellate review of trial court's rejection of plea of self-defence.	14 September 1963
Pinchin NO v Santam Insurance Company Limited (14/63) [1963] ZASCA 12 (3 September 1963) Appeal dismissed: plaintiff failed to prove on balance of probabilities that accident-related loss of amniotic fluid caused child’s cerebral palsy. Delict — causation — medical expert conflict — where multiple medically plausible causes exist and none is more probable, plaintiff fails to prove causation on balance of probabilities; nasciturus principle in delict unnecessary to decide where facts dispose of claim.	3 September 1963
August 1963
Johannesburg Liquor Licensing Board v Kuhn (47/63) [1963] ZASCA 4 (29 August 1963) Whether a liquor-board’s inspection-based refusal was unfair or so unreasonable as to warrant judicial review. Liquor licensing — Board inspections and local knowledge — Fair hearing and duty to disclose impressions — Judicial review limited to arbitrariness, mala fides or gross unreasonableness with prejudice — Economic circumstances (buying power) relevant to demand and public convenience.	29 August 1963
March 1963
Ramothibe and Others v S (2/63) [1963] ZASCA 13 (26 March 1963) Appellants’ coerced-confession complaints and trial irregularities did not render confessions inadmissible nor cause a failure of justice; appeal dismissed. Criminal procedure — admissibility of confessions — presiding judge’s exclusive function to rule on admissibility — interlocutory ruling subject to reconsideration only if new circumstances arise — voluntariness — failure to call essential witness under court’s duty — judge’s interventions and alleged irregularities not amounting to failure of justice.	26 March 1963
Sinkankanka and Another v S (6/63) [1963] ZASCA 3 (21 March 1963) Rebutting evidence contradicting an alibi was relevant; identity proven and convictions and sentences upheld. Criminal law – Sabotage (petrol-bombing) – identity of accused – alibi – admissibility of rebutting evidence on allegedly collateral fact (alibi-witness's work shift) – relevancy test (Attorney-General v Hitchcock; Wigmore) – credibility assessment – sentence discretion.	21 March 1963
February 1963
De Jager v Jones and Another (2/1962) [1963] ZASCA 1 (19 Februarie 1963) Payments and sale shortly before sequestration set aside as collusive dispositions that preferred one creditor and prejudiced others. Insolvency — dispositions shortly before sequestration — section 29(1) and collusion under section 31(1) — burden on beneficiary to prove absence of intent to prefer — trustees must prove collusion — statutory consequence under section 31(2): liability for loss and forfeiture of creditor's claim — appellate correction of clerical/figure errors in order.	19 February 1963