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
Japhtha v S (1016/2023) [2025] ZASCA 80 (5 June 2025)
The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a rape conviction after finding material misdirections in assessing a single witness’s unreliable and intoxicated evidence.
Underwriters at Lloyds of London v Minister of Safety and Security (40975/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 198; (2024) 45 ILJ 1339 (GP) (4 March 2024)
The court found that SAPS members Khubeka and Lekola, while employed and on duty, participated in the planning and execution of the robbery at SBV's premises, and subsequently obstructed recovery efforts. The admissions made by the defendant, including those relating to the criminal conviction and findings of fact, established all elements of delict. The court applied the constitutional test for vicarious liability, considering the close connection between the criminal acts and the SAPS members' employment, the public trust placed in police, and the constitutional obligations of the Minister.…
Source excerpt
Msiza and Another v S - Appeal (A223/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 729 (16 August 2023)
The appeal court found that the trial court correctly accepted the evidence of the complainants and State witnesses, which was credible and reliable. The appellants' own admissions, DNA evidence, and the consistent testimony of the complainants established that the sexual intercourse was not consensual and that the elements of rape and theft were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court properly considered the appellants' personal circumstances and pre-sentencing reports, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify a lesser sentence. The sentences imposed were in acc…
Source excerpt
S v Sejake (28/2022) [2022] ZAFSHC 265 (15 September 2022)
The High Court convicted the accused of murder after finding eyewitness identification, admissions, and a pointing out reliable and rejecting his alibi.
S v Zingela (CC 54/2020) [2021] ZAECGHC 47 (14 May 2021)
In respect of count 1, the court found that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully and intentionally killed Sindile Qebelu. The evidence of the sole witness, Xola Kayingo, was unreliable due to material contradictions, coincidences, and suspicion of impairment during testimony. The medical evidence did not conclusively link the accused's alleged conduct to the cause of death. The accused's alibi could not be rejected as not reasonably possibly true. In respect of count 2, the court found the evidence of Mzimazi Breakfast, Siziwe Peni, and Funeka Calu to…
Source excerpt
Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Mbonani (1198/2019) [2020] ZASCA 115 (30 September 2020)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that admissions in a s 112 plea statement remained proof, and that a confession to a justice of the peace need not be written.
Mpongoshe v S (CA&R211/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 104 (9 September 2019)
The court found that the appellant was not properly informed of his right to legal representation and legal aid after his attorney withdrew, particularly given the seriousness of the charges and his lack of funds. The trial court failed to ensure that the appellant understood his rights and the consequences of conducting his own defence. Although the magistrate provided some assistance during the trial, the appellant's lack of understanding of key legal concepts and his inability to adequately represent himself resulted in substantial injustice. The irregularity in failing to promote the oppo…
Source excerpt
Mbatha v S (AR67/2018) [2019] ZAKZPHC 9 (4 March 2019)
High Court appeal dismissed: murder and attempted murder convictions were upheld on circumstantial evidence, corroborating witnesses, admissions, and rejection of the alibi.
Twala and Another v S (A661/2013) [2017] ZAGPPHC 467 (5 June 2017)
The appeal was dismissed because the trial court correctly found, on the basis of circumstantial evidence and admissions, that the appellants were guilty of murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, kidnapping, theft, and fraud. The trial court properly applied the principles governing circumstantial evidence, as set out in R v Blom, and correctly rejected the appellants' versions as not reasonably possibly true. The appellants were properly warned about the applicability of minimum sentence provisions, and no substantial and compelling circumstances existed to justify deviation from th…
Source excerpt
Mazina v S (494/2016) [2017] ZASCA 22 (24 March 2017)
The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside Donovan Mazina’s murder conviction, holding that his section 115 plea explanation was not a formal admission under section 220.
Explore more
