Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Tshabalala v S (AR13/2024) [2025] ZAKZPHC 60 (20 June 2025)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against convictions and a 10-year sentence for attempted murder arising from a road-rage shooting.
Lioma v S (A138/2020) [2025] ZAFSHC 111 (6 March 2025)
The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt on all counts. The evidence relied upon by the court a quo was largely circumstantial and did not exclude reasonable inferences consistent with innocence. The State did not call key witnesses from the Departmental Tender Committee or other relevant officials, and the evidence of Mr Moeng was found to be unreliable and contradictory. The appellant's role in the procurement process was limited to signing memoranda of agreement after provincial approval, and there was no credible evidence that he…
Source excerpt
L.B.Z v National Director of Prosecutions (1195/2019) [2025] ZAMPMHC 23 (4 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed a malicious prosecution claim, finding the prosecutor had reasonable grounds to charge the plaintiff as an accomplice to rape.
Hollywood Sportsbrook Gauteng v Commission for Conciliation Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JR2519/21) [2024] ZALCJHB 146 (7 April 2024)
Labour Court review of a CCMA award involving credit bets held that the employee was an accomplice in dishonest workplace misconduct and dismissal was fair.
S v Shoba (SS36/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 174 (25 March 2022)
The court found that the State had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Shoba entered into an agreement with Mr. Malepane to murder Ms. P [....], motivated by the pregnancy and its consequences for his personal life. The evidence of Mr. Malepane, though requiring caution, was corroborated by cell phone records, CCTV footage, and witness testimony. The court rejected Mr. Shoba's explanation for his dealings with Mr. Malepane as false, and found no reasonable account of the facts consistent with innocence. The court concluded that Mr. Shoba knowingly and intentionally delivered Ms. P [....]…
Source excerpt
Pangela v S (A83/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 143 (21 May 2021)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for corruption, upholding the regional court’s credibility findings and rejecting an accomplice-liability argument.
Mbele v S (A94/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 272 (30 April 2021)
The High Court dismissed Robert Petros Mbele’s appeal against convictions and sentence for rape and assault, including accomplice liability for a co-accused’s rape.
Mlangeni v S (A230/2017) [2019] ZAFSHC 204 (24 October 2019)
The High Court found a sentencing misdirection, held that the prescribed minimum sentence had been misapplied, and reduced the appellant’s sentence to 12 years.
Mokgothu and Another v The State (A20/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 140 (27 September 2018)
The court found that the evidence against both appellants was overwhelming and corroborated by multiple sources, including the testimony of accomplices, cellular data analysis, and payments made to the assassin. The trial court correctly applied the cautionary rules to the evidence of single and accomplice witnesses, and the contradictions in the accomplice evidence were not material enough to undermine its reliability. The failure to call certain witnesses did not prejudice the appellants, as the defence was free to call them but chose not to. The court rejected the argument that the appella…
Source excerpt
Phetoe v S (1361/2016) [2018] ZASCA 20; 2018 (1) SACR 593 (SCA) (16 March 2018)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant's conviction as an accomplice to rape was not justified, as the evidence did not establish any act of facilitation, assistance, or encouragement by the appellant. Mere presence and approval, such as laughing, are insufficient for accomplice liability. The requirements for common purpose were not met for offences committed at other locations, as there was no evidence of a prior agreement or the appellant's presence at those scenes. The State failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for all counts except count 9, which was…
Source excerpt
Explore more
