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
S v Mtshali (CC59/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 587 (23 May 2025)
High Court criminal judgment convicting the accused of murder and rape after rejecting his claim that his semen was planted and that another man forced the acts.
S v Mthethwa and Others (CC62/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 316 (30 March 2025)
The Court found that the case against accused 2 was proved beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, corroborated identification, and the doctrine of recent possession. Accused 2 was linked to the crimes by his possession of the stolen Land Rover, cell phone data tracking his movements, and the withdrawal of funds from the deceased's accounts. The evidence excluded any reasonable inference other than his guilt. The identification by Mr Skhosana, though as a single witness, was corroborated by other evidence and the movements of the relevant cell phone. The version of accused 2…
Source excerpt
S v Mlambo (CC77/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 237 (3 March 2025)
The High Court convicted the accused of unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm and ammunition after finding the police evidence and a recorded admission credible.
Yoni v S (CA&R119-2022) [2024] ZAECMHC 51 (12 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal, finding an irregular plea inquiry and an inadmissible confession, but sufficient voluntary admissions and circumstantial evidence.
Yoni v S (CA&R 119/2022) [2024] ZAECMHC 48 (10 June 2024)
Appeal against conviction dismissed. The High Court found a plea irregularity and excluded an improperly admitted confession, but upheld the convictions on admissions and circumstantial evidence.
Hlabathi v S (A120/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 260 (25 March 2024)
The High Court upheld an automatic criminal appeal, finding a material irregularity because the appellant was not warned of his section 35 rights and his confession was inadmissible.
Brauns and Others v Wilkes N.O and Others (JA 47/22) [2024] ZALAC 1; [2024] 4 BLLR 365 (LAC); (2024) 45 ILJ 1183 (LAC) (18 January 2024)
The Labour Appeal Court found that the Commissioner properly identified and evaluated the principal issues, considered all relevant evidence including the confession and admissions, and arrived at a reasonable decision that the dismissals were substantively fair. The confession was found to be freely and voluntarily made before a magistrate, and its admissibility was properly established. The appellants' contention that the confession was invalid due to lack of information or emotional distress was rejected. The sanction of dismissal was not excessively harsh given the seriousness of the misc…
Source excerpt
Robertson v S (KS 48/05) [2023] ZANCHC 61; 2023 (2) SACR 615 (NCK) (29 September 2023)
The majority of the court found that the incomplete record, which lacked the evidence of the appellant and his co-accused, was inadequate for proper adjudication of the appeal. The available record consisted mainly of the State's evidence and did not allow for a fair consideration of the appellant's defence. Furthermore, the appeal was heard almost 17 years after sentencing, a delay not attributable to the appellant, which constituted a gross violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial and appeal. The court held that proceeding on the merits would infringe these rights. Consequently…
Source excerpt
S v Nene and Others (SS83/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1504 (28 August 2023)
The court found that the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused 2, 3, 4, and 5 were present at the scene and participated in the murder and robberies. The confessions and pointing out by accused 2 and 3 were admitted as freely and voluntarily made, with constitutional rights explained. The evidence of the section 204 witness (Nene) was corroborated by other witnesses and physical evidence, including the recovered cellphone and firearm. The doctrine of common purpose was applied, as all accused acted together, manifested association, and foresaw the possibility of the criminal resul…
Source excerpt
S v Zikhali (Second Trial within a Trial) (CC15/23) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1851 (4 August 2023)
The High Court held that the State failed to prove a confession by the accused was freely and voluntarily made, so it was ruled inadmissible.
Explore more
