Objective intention and subjective motive: Clarifying gross income judgments in the Supreme Court of Appeal

by | Sep 24, 2026 | SALJ, SALJ V143 I3 2026

NOTE

Objective intention and subjective motive: Clarifying gross income judgments in the Supreme Court of Appeal

Author: Afton Titus

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Associate Professor, University of Cape Town
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 143 Issue 3, p. 427-441
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v143/i3a1

Abstract

This case note reconstructs a consistent method for the Supreme Court of Appeal’s use of the taxpayer’s objective intention and subjective motive when classifying profits on the disposal of an asset as income or capital. It argues that the court has largely been consistent in applying the two-step test set out in CIR v Stott. Step 1 identifies whether the taxpayer is trading, in which case the taxpayer’s objective intention is used. Step 2 applies in the absence of a trade or where the transactions fall outside the identified trade. Here, the taxpayer’s subjective motive is used. Furthermore, this note identifies a narrow, fact-bound virtual certainty exception. A revenue intention is imputed in circumstances of foreknown virtual inevitability of profits, akin to indirect intention in criminal law. Read in this way, the SCA cases reveal a consistent methodology in the use of the taxpayer’s objective intention and subjective motive.

Excessive speeding and the limits of traffic law enforcement: A note on Zilwa v MEC for Transport and Public Works

by | Sep 24, 2026 | SALJ, SALJ V143 I3 2026

NOTE

Excessive speeding and the limits of traffic law enforcement: A note on Zilwa v MEC for Transport and Public Works

Author: Boyane Tshehla

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer, North-West University
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 143 Issue 3, p. 442-452
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v143/i3a2

Abstract

This note examines Zilwa v MEC for Transport and Public Works, a Western Cape High Court judgment that declared unlawful a warrantless arrest and detention for excessive speeding. While the judgment reaffirms and emphasises the constitutional sanctity of the right to liberty, it seems to depart from the wording of s 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, read with Schedule 1 and s 89 of the National Road Traffic Act 93 of 1996. Assessing the Zilwa judgment against the Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto 2011 (1) SACR 315 (SCA) suggests that the court may have taken a route that sits uncomfortably with precedent. The court may also have created a form of operational paralysis or, at least, added another administrative layer in traffic law enforcement.