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
Molise v S (43/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 155 (22 May 2024)
Leave to appeal was granted in a criminal matter involving convictions, life sentences, and disputes over a hostile witness’s statements and accomplice evidence.
S v Masemola and Others (CC131/2006;A121/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 632 (31 July 2023)
The High Court postponed a criminal appeal sine die and sent the matter back to the trial court to further reconstruct a missing trial record.
Mbongwa v S (AR337/18) [2020] ZAKZPHC 50 (11 September 2020)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for multiple robberies and housebreaking, finding the eyewitness identification reliable and no improper duplication.
Mkhize v S (AR64/19P) [2020] ZAKZPHC 49 (7 July 2020)
The High Court upheld an appeal against convictions for housebreaking, robbery and attempted murder, finding the State had not proved the appellant’s identity beyond reasonable doubt.
Nkonki and Another v S (CA149/2016) [2018] ZAECGHC 47 (7 June 2018)
Appeal against convictions for murder and attempted robbery: first appellant’s conviction was upheld, while the second appellant’s conviction was set aside.
Moriri and Another v S (A572/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 437 (15 June 2016)
The High Court upheld an appeal against robbery convictions because the State’s sole accomplice witness was unreliable and uncorroborated.
Lebopa v S (A492/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 231 (29 April 2015)
The High Court dismissed Lebopa’s appeal against convictions for rape, assault and robbery, and confirmed his life sentence and other sentences.
S v Deppe and Another (512/12) [2013] ZASCA 4 (7 March 2013)
Criminal appeal on housebreaking and theft. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that corroborated single-witness evidence and circumstantial evidence proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Piedt and Anders v S (SS60/2008) [2010] ZAWCHC 109 (18 February 2010)
The court applied section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Act and granted indemnity to Caroline May, but refused indemnity to Ivan Sefoor.
S v Mthembu (379/07) [2008] ZASCA 51; [2008] 3 All SA 159 (SCA); [2008] 4 All SA 517 (SCA) ; 2008 (2) SACR 407 (SCA) (10 April 2008)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that evidence obtained from Ramseroop, the accomplice, through torture—including both his narrative testimony and real evidence (the Hilux and metal box)—was inadmissible under section 35(5) of the Constitution and Article 15 of the CAT. The court found an inextricable link between the torture and the evidence presented, rendering it irredeemably tainted. The exclusionary rule applies not only to accused persons but also to third parties such as accomplices. Without the tainted evidence, the remaining evidence was insufficient to sustain convictions on counts…
Source excerpt
Explore more
