- Digital evidence is now determining outcomes in both criminal and civil court cases.
- Courts are placing greater weight on metadata, financial records and communication trails.
- Proper documentation is becoming a baseline requirement in civil proceedings.
Digital evidence is no longer the supporting material in South Africa’s courts. It is now determining the outcomes in criminal and civil court cases.
That is according to Cor van Deventer, Director of VDM Incorporated, who says the trend is visible in every major judgment handed down in 2026.
Digital trails underpin the Cuba appeal
In Cuba and Another v S (A98/2023), delivered on 17 February 2026, the High Court in the Western Cape dismissed the appeal of two men convicted of a 2020 home invasion in Zwelihle, Hermanus.
“The court focused on the evidentiary records rather than the violence itself,” says Van Deventer, adding, “The deciding factor was the digital trail. Cellphone records placed the appellants near the scene, and tower-to-tower movement patterns matched the route of the fleeing taxi and the timing of communications between the two men.”
Police intercepted the taxi shortly after the incident, recovering firearms, ammunition and clothing items, he continues, but it was the digital evidence that tied the sequence together. The appellants’ own devices also worked against them. One phone connected to a tower facing the street where the incident occurred, placing it within a narrow radius that aligned with the State’s timeline.
“The combined weight of the digital and forensic material formed a reliable, coherent picture for the judges, who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the convictions. This case sets the tone for 2026, with courts relying on digital records as primary rather than background evidence.”
Digital financial records drive outcomes in economic crime
A second 2026 judgment, S v Makhubela and Others, shows the same pattern in a completely different context, namely economic crime, he notes.
Here, the State reconstructed a fraud scheme using digital financial records, device extractions and communication metadata. “Bank transaction logs established the flow of funds, WhatsApp and SMS messages revealed coordination between the accused, and device extractions provided timestamps, document histories and location data that supported the State’s version of events,” Van Deventer says.
“The digital records contained several moments that effectively tripped up the accused,” he continues. “Some of the disputed transactions were authorised from devices registered in the accused’s own names, which contradicted their claims that they were not involved in the movement of funds. There were also WhatsApp messages recovered from one handset, which included instructions on how to move the money and screenshots of account balances. This material directly contradicted the defence’s version that they had no knowledge of the scheme.”
For Van Deventer, it was the metadata that provided the real “aha” moment in the case. Metadata, the hidden timestamps and digital fingerprints created automatically by devices and documents, showed that a spreadsheet at the centre of the fraud had been created and edited on a laptop seized from one of the accused. “The timestamps aligned exactly with the period in which the fraudulent transactions were executed. It is very difficult to explain away a digital footprint like that.”
The court gave more weight to the digital records than the oral testimony, Van Deventer says further. “Where the witnesses disagreed or could not remember specific details, the metadata filled in the gaps. The judgment made it clear that digital financial trails now play a fundamental role in proving intent, knowledge and participation in criminal matters. That reliance on digital evidence is not confined to serious violent crime. It has become the backbone of prosecutions in fraud, corruption and organised crime matters, where documentary and digital records often speak louder than human memory.”
Courts expect properly supported pleadings
The trend is also extending beyond criminal matters. Citing Daniels NNO v Palm NO and Others (2024/2023), delivered on 27 February 2026, Van Deventer says that the High Court denied a plea because the defendants failed to provide material facts and supporting documentation. “Denials without records or supporting evidence do not meet the standards required in civil procedure. Digital documentation, from emails and contracts to metadata and audit trails, is now a baseline requirement.”
The court, he says, was explicit about the absence of documentary anchors. “The defendants insisted they had acted properly, but they could not produce a single supporting document. No emails, no resolutions, and no records of the decisions they claimed to have taken. In a civil matter, that is simply not enough.”
The direction of 2026 litigation
“The Cuba, Makhubela and Daniels judgments all point in the same direction,” he maintains. “Regardless of whether the issue is violent crime, economic crime or civil procedure, courts want verifiable digital material. As AI-generated content emerges in disputes, the principles applied in these judgments, reliability, corroboration and context, will guide how that material is assessed.”
Taken together, Van Deventer says these cases show that the evidentiary centre of gravity has moved. “In 2026, the credibility of a case rests on the strength of its digital records.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
