South Africa Case Law

Mhlaba v S (A97/2023)

Mhlaba v S (A97/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 216 (4 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A97/2023

Judges

Basson, Millar, Rangata

The court found that the appellant's conviction was supported by direct and uncontroverted evidence, particularly the testimony of Mr. Ceko, who identified the appellant as present and actively participating in the offences. The extra-curial statement by Mr. Khoza was disregarded in accordance with the principles set out in S v Litako, but the remaining evidence established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant's conduct, including his entry into the premises, participation in the robbery, and failure to dissociate himself from the use of the firearm, placed him within…

Source excerpt

• Common Purpose
• Minimum Sentences
• Identification Evidence
• Admissibility Of Extra Curial Statements
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Murder

S v Chonco (SS69/2012)

S v Chonco (SS69/2012) [2017] ZAGPJHC 278 (26 September 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS69/2012

Judge

Spilg

The court granted leave to appeal against convictions for murder and firearm offences, considering whether a pre-arrest statement was admissible and whether consultation prejudice was shown.

• Admissibility Of Extra Curial Statements
• Right To Legal Represention
• Self Defence
• Trial Prejudice
• Criminal-law
• Admissibility-of-statements

Sithunza v S (AR 340/2015)

Sithunza v S (AR 340/2015) [2016] ZAKZPHC 9 (9 February 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 340/2015

Judges

Gorven, Seegobin, Olsen

The High Court upheld the appeal, setting aside the appellant’s murder conviction and life sentence for lack of admissible evidence linking him to a prior agreement.

• Common Purpose
• Admissibility Of Extra Curial Statements
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Alibi Defence
• Murder
• Common-purpose