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
S v Hati and Another (Sentence) (CC 65/2024) [2025] ZAECMKHC 31 (28 March 2025)
Sentencing judgment imposing life imprisonment on one accused and 20 years’ effective imprisonment on the other for robbery, kidnapping and attempted murder.
S v Mpangane and Another (CC12/2022) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 88 (28 June 2024)
The court found that the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused 1 and Accused 2, acting in furtherance of a common purpose, committed multiple offences including murder, attempted murder, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, kidnapping, arson, and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. The identification evidence, though challenged, was corroborated by prior knowledge, opportunity for observation, and circumstantial evidence. The alibi defences of both accused were rejected as not reasonably possibly true, given their late disclosure, lack of corroboration, and…
Source excerpt
Mkhwanazi v S (AR 309/2021) [2024] ZAKZPHC 43 (24 May 2024)
The High Court overturned a murder and arson conviction, finding the identification evidence unreliable and the appellant’s alibi not disproved beyond reasonable doubt.
De Koker v S (Sentence) (CA&R 32/2023) [2023] ZANCHC 86 (24 November 2023)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against sentence for murder, attempted murder and arson, holding there was no misdirection in making sentences consecutive.
S v Tai-Tai and Others - Sentence (CC21.2020) [2023] ZAECMHC 45 (30 August 2023)
The High Court sentenced three accused for premeditated murder and arson, imposing life imprisonment for three murder counts, five years for arson, and firearm disqualification.
S v Meshack (SS57/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 740 (27 June 2023)
The court found that the State's witnesses were not credible or reliable, with material contradictions and inconsistencies in their testimony and statements. The independent witnesses' evidence did not corroborate the State's narrative, and the medical and post-mortem records were inconsistent with the State's case. The accused's alibi was corroborated on material aspects and remained unchallenged by the State. The police failed to investigate the alibi or collect sufficient evidence. Considering the totality of the evidence, the accused's version was reasonably possibly true, and the State f…
Source excerpt
S v Kesa (Sentence) (CC19/2020) [2023] ZAECMHC 7 (16 February 2023)
The court found that the accused's personal circumstances, including being a first offender and having been assaulted after escaping custody, do not constitute substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a departure from the prescribed minimum sentences for murder. The offences were premeditated, brutal, and involved the killing of close family members, including a pregnant sister and a young niece. The accused showed no remorse and failed to provide an honest account of his actions. The interests of society, the seriousness of the crimes, and the need for deterrence and retribution r…
Source excerpt
S v Kesa and Another (CC19/2020) [2023] ZAECMHC 6 (13 February 2023)
The court found that the State's circumstantial and forensic evidence, including DNA linking the accused's clothing to the deceased, the presence of blood stains inconsistent with accidental fire, and the accused's repeated contradictions and introduction of new versions, established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused had motive, opportunity, and was found with incriminating evidence immediately after the murders. His explanations were rejected as false and fabricated. The totality of the evidence pointed to the accused intentionally killing his parents, sister, and niece by setti…
Source excerpt
S v Kesa and Another (CC19/2020) [2022] ZAECMHC 47 (2 December 2022)
The court found that the State's evidence against accused no.2 was insufficient and fell far below the minimum threshold required for a conviction. There was no direct or circumstantial evidence linking accused no.2 to the murders or arson, and the only way a conviction could be obtained would be through self-incrimination, which is impermissible. In contrast, the evidence against accused no.1 included forensic findings of his mother's blood on his tracksuit top and unexplained blood at the crime scene, which, when considered with motive and opportunity, established a prima facie case requiri…
Source excerpt
Anthony v S (SS98/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 799 (18 October 2022)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against convictions for murder, arson and related offences, finding no realistic prospect of success.
Explore more
