South Africa Case Law

S v Mthethwa and Others (Sentence) (CC62/2021)

S v Mthethwa and Others (Sentence) (CC62/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 777 (29 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC62/2021

Judge

LA van Wyk

The court found that the accused's personal circumstances, including his period of pre-sentence detention, did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentences. The seriousness and number of offences, including two murders committed during the course of robbery and kidnapping, outweighed any mitigating factors. The accused's alleged mental illness was not substantiated by evidence and did not affect his ability to participate in the trial. The court held that the prescribed sentences were proportionate to the crimes committed an…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Kidnapping
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Murder
• Pre Sentence Detention

V.N and Another v S (Appeal) (A21/2025)

V.N and Another v S (Appeal) (A21/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 265 (23 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A21/2025

Judges

Mantame, Pangarker

Appeal court partly upheld an appeal from rape, robbery and housebreaking convictions, reducing some convictions to theft and robbery without aggravating circumstances.

• Rape
• Robbery
• Housebreaking
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Compelling Children To Witness Sexual Offences
• Minimum Sentences

Thue v S (Appeal) (CA 29/2023)

Thue v S (Appeal) (CA 29/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 42 (26 February 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 29/2023

Judges

Reid, Mfenyana

The court held that the trial court was justified in convicting the appellant on the evidence of the complainant, a single witness, as her testimony was found credible despite minor discrepancies. The absence of physical injuries did not negate the occurrence of rape. The trial court correctly approached the evidence with caution and considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's personal circumstances and the lack of previous convictions. The acts committed by the appellant constituted separate offences, justifying the conviction for rape with aggravating circumstances. The sente…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Single Witness Evidence
• Sentencing Principles
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances

Whitebooi and Another v S (Appeal) (CA&R 130/2022)

Whitebooi and Another v S (Appeal) (CA&R 130/2022) [2025] ZAECMKHC 8 (6 February 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA&R130/2022

Judges

M Roberson, G A Laing

The High Court set aside robbery-with-aggravating-circumstances convictions, substituted robbery simpliciter, reduced robbery sentences to seven years, and confirmed the murder sentence for the first appellant.

• Robbery Simpliciter
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Minimum Sentencing
• Murder
• Review Jurisdiction
• Robbery-simpliciter

Mahlo v S (A17/24)

Mahlo v S (A17/24) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 5 (31 January 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A17/24

Judges

Msibi, Mashile

The High Court upheld a sentence appeal in part, confirming the minimum-sentence finding but ordering counts 2 to 4 to run concurrently with count 1.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Concurrent Sentences
• Appeal On Sentence
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Minimum-sentencing

Dlamini v S (A23/2024)

Dlamini v S (A23/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1262 (4 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A23/2024

Judges

Swanepoel, Retief, Hassim

The court held that the circumstances of the murder were exceptionally aggravating: the victim was a defenceless infant, the attack was inexplicably cruel and brutal, and the appellant showed no remorse or explanation for his actions. The minimum sentence of 15 years' imprisonment would be unduly lenient and would not reflect the outrage felt by society for such violence against a child. The High Court is empowered to impose life imprisonment where aggravating circumstances exist, and in this case, the severity and senselessness of the offence justified the harshest sentence. The appellant wa…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Murder
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Proportionality Of Sentence
• Life Imprisonment

Modise v S (CA 57/2018)

Modise v S (CA 57/2018) [2024] ZANWHC 319 (31 October 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 57/2018

Judges

B Ceylon, M Morgan

The High Court dismissed an appeal against life imprisonment for three rape convictions, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances to depart from the prescribed minimum.

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Remorse
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Minimum-sentencing

Zixelele and Another v S (A01/2024)

Zixelele and Another v S (A01/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 312 (15 October 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A01/2024

Judges

S Mthimunye, MI Samela

The court found that the regional magistrate had properly informed the appellants of the applicability of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and had afforded their legal representatives an opportunity to address the possibility of increasing the prescribed minimum sentences. The evidence relating to mitigation and aggravation of sentence was available and considered. The offences were extremely serious, involving violence, the use of weapons, and significant trauma to the complainants. The court held that the seriousness of the crimes outweighed the appellants' personal circumstances, which shoul…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentences
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Mitigation Of Sentence
• Concurrent Sentences
• Firearms Control
• Appeal Test

Banda v S (CA70/2019)

Banda v S (CA70/2019) [2024] ZANWHC 253 (11 October 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA70/2019

Judges

Hendricks, Petersen

The High Court dismissed an appeal against life imprisonment for rape, holding that no substantial and compelling circumstances justified departure from the prescribed sentence.

• Rape
• Minimum Sentences
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Sentencing Discretion
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Minimum-sentences

Papiki v S (A264/2018)

Papiki v S (A264/2018) [2024] ZAGPJHC 855 (29 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A264/2018

Judges

Ismail, Dosio, Mathunzi

The appeal court found that the trial court had not committed any material misdirection in imposing the sentences. The aggravating circumstances, including the appellant's previous conviction for rape, the brutality and cruelty of the offences, the lack of remorse, and the trauma suffered by the victims, justified the sentences imposed. The appellant's personal circumstances did not constitute substantial and compelling circumstances warranting a lesser sentence. The sentences, including life imprisonment for the two counts of rape, were proportionate to the gravity of the offences and did no…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Minimum Sentences
• Rape
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Appeal Procedure