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
Mokone v S (A02/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 717 (6 August 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction and sentence for robbery with aggravating circumstances and murder, upholding identification evidence and rejection of an alibi.
Godla v S (CA 48/2018) [2023] ZANWHC 238 (22 December 2023)
Criminal appeal against rape conviction and life sentence dismissed. Court upheld child witness evidence, identification, and rejection of the appellant’s alibi.
Sebidi and Others v S (CA 48/22) [2023] ZANWHC 151 (29 August 2023)
The appeal court found that the conviction of the second appellant for robbery with aggravating circumstances was justified, as the circumstantial fingerprint evidence placed him at the scene and his alibi was not reasonably possibly true. The court held that the Regional Magistrate erred in conflating the doctrines of common purpose and joint possession regarding the firearm and ammunition charges. There was no evidence that all appellants had the requisite intention or physical control to establish joint possession of the firearm and ammunition; thus, those convictions and sentences were se…
Source excerpt
S v Davids (SS12/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 924 (17 November 2022)
The High Court dismissed Lloyd Jermaine Davids’ application for leave to appeal against conviction, finding no reasonable prospect of a different result.
S v Makgopa and Others (SS87/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 192 (4 April 2022)
The court found the evidence of Potego Malema to be clear, consistent, and credible, corroborated in material respects by Shoki Malatji. The identification of Norman Makgopa, Tumelo Makgopa, and Dennis Pasha as participants in the detention, assault, and murder of Pitso Rampya was accepted beyond reasonable doubt. The alibi evidence presented by the accused was rejected as uncreditworthy and likely fabricated, given its late disclosure and lack of corroboration. The discharge of Potego Mohlala was justified as there was no evidence linking him to the murder, and his conduct was consistent wit…
Source excerpt
M.J.S v S (AR659/2018) [2021] ZAKZPHC 78 (21 May 2021)
High Court allowed an appeal against a rape conviction, finding the trial was unfair, evidence contradictory, and the appellant’s alibi reasonably possibly true.
Yanta and Another v S (A71/21, A43/21) [2021] ZAWCHC 96 (14 May 2021)
The High Court dismissed a bail appeal by two Schedule 6 accused, finding no exceptional circumstances and a strong prima facie State case.
S v Lumka (CC52/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 229 (27 January 2020)
The High Court dismissed a criminal trial postponement application, finding the accused’s CCTV and alibi arguments speculative and unsupported.
Bangani v S (A579/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1149 (30 May 2017)
The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove Bangani's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence against him was circumstantial and did not exclude every reasonable inference except guilt. The identification evidence was weak and possibly contaminated by confirmation bias. The alibi evidence was inconsistent but not conclusively false, and the absence of direct or forensic evidence linking Bangani to the crime left the court in doubt. The trial court erred in its assessment of the circumstantial evidence and failed to properly consider the contradictions and weaknesses in the St…
Source excerpt
Malatjie and Another v S (A191/2016, CC360/2010) [2017] ZAGPPHC 131 (5 April 2017)
The Court found that the identification evidence of Malahle, who personally knew both appellants and observed them under favourable conditions, was reliable and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of stolen property and admissions made by Ralph Malatjie. The alibi evidence presented by the appellants was uncorroborated and contradicted by other witnesses, rendering it improbable and not reasonably possibly true. The Court held that the State had discharged its onus of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and there was no material misdirection by the trial court.…
Source excerpt
Explore more
