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
Mboyena v S (CA 35/2020) [2025] ZANWHC 16 (28 January 2025)
The High Court condoned a late criminal appeal but dismissed the appellant’s challenge to a 25-year rape sentence, finding no basis to interfere.
Director of Public Prosecutions, Eastern Cape, Makhanda v Coko (main and supplementary judgment) (248/2022) [2024] ZASCA 59; 2024 (2) SACR 113 (SCA); [2024] 3 All SA 674 (SCA) (24 April 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the complainant, TS, had repeatedly communicated her wish not to engage in penetrative sex and that the respondent had assured her this would be respected. The respondent's reliance on body language and prior foreplay as indicators of consent was rejected, as mere acquiescence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent under South African law. The WhatsApp messages and TS's immediate reaction after the incident corroborated her lack of consent. The High Court erred in finding tacit consent based on insubstantial grounds and in interfering with the…
Source excerpt
Mkhwanazi and Another v S (Appeal) (AR504/2018) [2023] ZAKZPHC 162 (22 September 2023)
Appeal court upheld self-defence arguments, set aside murder, attempted murder and assault convictions, and found the trial court misdirected itself on the evidence.
Mnguni and Others v S (A875/2012) [2019] ZAGPPHC 587 (31 October 2019)
The court held that its role was appellate and not to determine afresh whether bail should be granted, but whether the lower court misdirected itself in refusing bail. The offences charged are serious and fall under Schedule 6, requiring proof of exceptional circumstances for bail. The appellants' personal circumstances, as presented, did not amount to substantial or exceptional circumstances justifying interference with the lower court's decision. The court found no misdirection or error in the lower court's reasoning or exercise of discretion. Consequently, there was no basis to overturn th…
Source excerpt
Ngema v S (A728/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 163 (26 March 2019)
High Court appeal against an assault conviction and sentence dismissed. The court upheld reliance on the complainant’s single-witness evidence and found no basis to interfere.
Malherbe v S (A921/14) [2016] ZAGPPHC 107 (2 March 2016)
The High Court upheld a common assault conviction where the appellant admitted pushing the complainant; the sentence, a R3000 fine or three months’ imprisonment, was also confirmed.
Mopp v S (CA&R38/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 136 (25 November 2015)
Appeal against sentence dismissed. The High Court held that the magistrate properly exercised discretion and was not obliged to order concurrency under section 280.
Du Toit v S (A381//2014) [2015] ZAWCHC 110 (17 August 2015)
The appellate court found that the trial court had correctly evaluated the evidence as a whole, including the credibility of the complainant and the corroboration provided by other witnesses and medical evidence. The contradictions in the evidence were not material and did not detract from the reliability of the complainant's account. The appellant's version was found to be improbable and dishonest, and the possibility of a conspiracy among state witnesses was unsupported by the evidence. The medical testimony confirmed that the injuries sustained by the complainant were consistent with being…
Source excerpt
Thebe v S (A190/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 11 (29 January 2015)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a murder conviction and 15-year sentence, finding the prosecution witnesses credible and no mitigating provocation or youth.
Masuku v S (A287/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 301 (31 August 2012)
The court held that the sentence of 15 years' imprisonment was not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, which involved a brutal, sustained, and unprovoked attack with a panga resulting in severe injuries to the complainant. The trial court had properly considered the appellant's personal circumstances, including his status as a first offender, financial responsibilities, and remorse. However, the seriousness of the crime and its impact on the victim outweighed these factors. There was no material misdirection by the trial court, and the sentence did not induce a sense of shock. Acc…
Source excerpt
Explore more
