South Africa Case Law

Makeleni and Another v S (CA&R 51/18)

Makeleni and Another v S (CA&R 51/18) [2019] ZAECGHC 53 (26 March 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 51/18

Judges

D Van Zyl, J M Roberson, F Renqe

The court held that there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that either appellant had knowledge of or exercised control over the firearm and ammunition found in the vehicle. The doctrine of common purpose, while applicable to consequence crimes such as murder, does not automatically extend to possessory crimes without proof of the requisite animus and control. The State failed to establish that the appellants jointly possessed the firearm and ammunition, as required by the test in S v Nkosi and confirmed in S v Makhubela. Mere presence in the vehicle and participation in other crimes…

Source excerpt

• Joint Possession
• Firearms Control Act
• Common Purpose
• Actus Reus
• Animus
• Circumstantial Evidence

Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Cape v Swart and Another (K19/16)

Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Cape v Swart and Another (K19/16) [2018] ZANCHC 12; 2018 (2) SACR 211 (NCK) (26 February 2018)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

K19/16

Judge

Matlapeng

The High Court dismissed the State’s request to reserve questions of law, holding that the dispute concerned factual evaluation of evidence, not a legal issue.

• Reservation Of Question Of Law
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Joint Possession
• Actus Reus
• Common Purpose
• Reservation-of-question-of-law

Maqubela v S (821/2015)

Maqubela v S (821/2015) [2017] ZASCA 137; 2017 (2) SACR 690 (SCA) (29 September 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

821/2015

Judges

Ponnan, Leach, Tshiqi, Swain, Ploos van Amstel

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside Maqubela’s murder conviction, holding that the medical evidence supported natural causes as the probable cause of death.

• Murder
• Expert Evidence
• Inferential Reasoning
• Actus Reus
• Consciousness Of Guilt
• Expert-evidence

Makhanya v S (A345/14)

Makhanya v S (A345/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 710 (30 September 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A345/14

Judges

BAM, M L MOLOPA-SETHOSA

The court found that the fingerprint evidence reliably linked the appellant to the crime and that the conviction for robbery with aggravating circumstances was justified. However, the conviction for pointing a firearm was set aside as it formed part of the actus reus of the robbery. The trial court erred by increasing the minimum sentence without notifying the defence or providing reasons for the increase. There were no extraordinary aggravating features to justify a sentence above the prescribed minimum. The appeal against the conviction and sentence on count 1 succeeded, while the appeal ag…

Source excerpt

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Fingerprint Evidence
• Actus Reus
• Sentencing Discretion

Maharaj v Government of the Republic of South Africa (476/2001)

Maharaj v Government of the Republic of South Africa (476/2001) [2012] ZAKZDHC 6 (1 January 2012)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

476/2001

Judge

Koen

The High Court dismissed a malicious prosecution claim, finding the State had reasonable and probable cause to prosecute based on the docket material available at the time.

• Malicious Prosecution
• Reasonable And Probable Cause
• Actus Reus
• Mens Rea
• Costs Order
• Malicious-prosecution

Janse van Rensburg v S (A452/2010)

Janse van Rensburg v S (A452/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 593 (1 December 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A452/2010

Judges

P Blignault, B J Manca

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a theft conviction, holding that the appellant’s volunteer delivery of goods to a supplier amounted to appropriation.

• Theft
• Mens Rea
• Actus Reus
• Corporate Criminal Liability
• Criminal-appeal
• Appropriation

Bilsbury v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (Stannic Division) (ECJ 064/2005)

Bilsbury v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (Stannic Division) (ECJ 064/2005) [2005] ZAECHC 30 (8 September 2005)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

CA&R 213/05

Judges

RJW Jones, B Sandi

The court set aside a trespass conviction and substituted attempted trespass, holding that lifting a roller door toward unlawful entry went beyond mere preparation.

• Trespass
• Attempted Crime
• Actus Reus
• Criminal Intent
• Attempted-crime
• Criminal-intent

S v Rautenbach (186/99)

S v Rautenbach (186/99) [2001] ZASCA 42; [2001] 3 All SA 299 (A); 2001 (1) SACR 521 (SCA) (26 March 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

186/99

Judges

Olivier, Zulman, Mthiyane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the phrase 'immoral or indecent act' in section 14(1)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act 23 of 1957 requires a sexual connotation. The court found that the communal bathing between the appellant and the boys, under the circumstances, did not possess any sexual motive or implication. The conduct was not secretive, was known to the boys' families, and did not involve sexual activity or stimulation. The court emphasized that criminal liability under the provision cannot be established merely on the basis of conduct that is unusual or broadly improper; a sexual el…

Source excerpt

• Sexual Offences
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Public Morality
• Actus Reus

S v Henry (246/97)

S v Henry (246/97) [1998] ZASCA 109; [1999] 1 All SA 290 (A) (27 November 1998)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

246/97

Judge

Scott JA

The appeal court rejected a defence of psychogenic automatism and upheld convictions for two murders and pointing a firearm.

• Murder
• Automatism
• Actus Reus
• Psychogenic Amnesia
• Onus Of Proof
• Arms And Ammunition Act

S v Khumalo en Andere (655/89)

S v Khumalo en Andere (655/89) [1991] ZASCA 70; 1991 (4) SA 310 (AD); [1991] 2 All SA 341 (A) (29 May 1991)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

655/89

Judges

E M Grosskopf, Smalberger, Nienaber

Appeal in a mob-violence case where the court held common purpose was not proved against all appellants. Many murder convictions were reduced to public violence.

• Common Purpose
• Identification Evidence
• Public Violence
• Sentencing Principles
• Mens Rea
• Actus Reus