South Africa Case Law

Ndyamarha and Another v S (Appeal) (CA & R 245/2022)

Ndyamarha and Another v S (Appeal) (CA & R 245/2022) [2025] ZAECMKHC 22 (11 March 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA&R 245/2022

Judges

Metu, S.A. Collett

The court found that the evidence established the essential elements of theft. The appellants received payment for accommodation that was never provided, and the 'virtual bed & breakfast' entities were fictitious. The first appellant conceded under cross-examination that he had no legitimate claim to the funds. The argument that the matter was a civil breach of contract was rejected, as the facts satisfied the requirements for theft as set out in S v Boesak. The trial magistrate's factual findings were upheld, and there was no basis for interference by the appeal court.

Source excerpt

• Theft
• Elements Of Crime
• Distinction Between Theft And Breach Of Contract
• Evaluation Of Evidence
• Animus Furandi

Ludick v S (A48/2017)

Ludick v S (A48/2017) [2017] ZAGPJHC 453 (7 September 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A48/2017

Judges

Windell, Siwendu

The High Court upheld Ludick’s appeal against a theft conviction, finding the State failed to prove intent to steal beyond reasonable doubt.

• Theft
• Intention To Steal
• Administration Of Estates Act
• Onus Of Proof
• Animus Furandi
• Intent-to-steal

S v Ruthven (632/91)

S v Ruthven (632/91) [1993] ZASCA 42 (26 March 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

632/91

Judges

Smalberger, Kumleben, Eksteen

The appeal succeeded. The theft conviction was set aside because the evidence did not prove animus furandi, and the matter was remitted for resentencing on a lesser offence.

• Theft
• Animus Furandi
• Corrective Supervision
• Criminal Intent
• Misuse Of Trust Position
• Criminal-appeal

S v Speedy (444/83)

S v Speedy (444/83) [1985] ZASCA 1; [1985] 2 All SA 112 (A) (12 March 1985)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

444/83

Judges

Kotzé, Joubert, Botha, Hefer, Eloff

The court held that the State failed to prove theft where the accused may have believed his conduct was lawful, and set aside the conviction and sentence.

• Animus Furandi
• Absence Of Unlawfulness
• Belief In Lawfulness
• Theft
• Mens Rea
• Criminal-law