S v Duze and Others (CCD38/2023) [2025] ZAKZDHC 84 (9 December 2025)

Case Note

The State v Mthokozisi Pius Duze & Others
[2023] ZAKZDHC 20
Date of Judgment: 9 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to the significant legal implications surrounding the rights of the accused to a speedy trial, the application of Section 342A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, and the intricate issues involving delays in criminal proceedings. The ruling provides clarity on the interpretation of unreasonable delay and its consequences, making it essential for future cases concerning similar contexts.

Cases Cited

• S v Ramabele and Others [2020] ZACC 22; 2020 (2) SACR 604 (CC).
• S v Ndibe [2012] ZAWCHC 245.
• Sanderson v Attorney-General, Eastern Cape 1998 (1) SACR 22 (CC).
• Van Heerden and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others [2017] ZASCA 105; 2017 (2) SACR 696 SCA.

Legislation Cited

• Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA), specifically Section 342A and its provisions regarding delays and the rights of the accused.

Rules of Court Cited

• None specified directly in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The High Court dealt with an application submitted by multiple accused persons to have their case struck off the roll due to alleged unreasonable delays in prosecution. The court dismissed the application, confirming that although the delay was noted, it was not deemed unreasonable under the circumstances. The ruling reinforced the necessity of the administration of justice to safeguard both the rights of the accused and the integrity of the legal process.

Key Issues

The court addressed several key issues, including: 1. The determination of what constitutes an unreasonable delay in criminal proceedings. 2. The factors to be weighed when assessing the delays from both the prosecution and defense sides. 3. The impact of these delays on the rights of the accused, including potential prejudice suffered.

Held

The High Court held that the application for the case to be struck off the roll was dismissed. The rule nisi issued previously was confirmed, and the upcoming trial dates were vacated, with the case being enrolled for pre-trial proceedings instead. No costs were awarded.

THE FACTS

The case involved twelve accused, each charged with serious offenses including corruption, fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy related to tender processes at Mhlathuze Water. The arrest of most accused occurred between August 2022 and June 2023, with significant time consumed by investigations and related judicial processes. The defense pointed out the prolonged nature of the investigation, which was ongoing three years post-arrest, resulting in severe limitations on their movements and expensive legal costs due to bail conditions.

THE ISSUES

The court faced crucial legal questions concerning the reasonableness of the delays exhibited by the prosecution in bringing the case to trial. The defense argued that the delays were detrimental to their rights and that they had been subjected to undue stress and financial burden due to the extended nature of the criminal proceedings against them. Conversely, the State contended that various complexities inherent in the case justified the timelines observed.

ANALYSIS

The judgment reflected an intricate analysis of what constituted an unreasonable delay in the context of South African law, specifically through the lens of Section 342A of the CPA. The court employed a multi-factor approach to gauge the timeline of events, focusing on how both the prosecution's need for thorough investigation and the defense's requests for particulars influenced the duration of proceedings. The court emphasized that while some delays might appear unacceptable, they were warranted given the complexities of the offenses charged and the volume of evidence to be considered.

The court also noted that the presence of factors such as systemic challenges within the prosecutorial framework and the exigencies of high-profile investigations contributed to the overall time elapsed. Consequently, both parties were seen as partially complicit in the delays, leading to a ruling that shaped the precedent for future cases dealing with similar issues of trial readiness and procedural delays.

REMEDY

The court's remedy involved dismissing the application to strike the matter from the roll, confirming the previously issued rule nisi, and terminating the reserved trial dates. Instead, the case was moved to a pre-trial roll, indicating that further preparations would continue before proceeding to trial, thus underscoring a commitment to ensuring the case was handled attentively without imposing unwarranted obstacles on either party.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles established in this judgment include: 1. The balancing of the accused's right to a fair trial and timely prosecution against the practical realities of a complex criminal investigation. 2. A reaffirmation of the importance of meticulous adherence to pre-trial procedures and court directives governing the prosecution. 3. Emphasis on the dual responsibility of both the State and the defense within the context of procedural delays and their implications for justice.