South Africa Case Law

Loyiso Ludidi and Others v S (983/2022; 056/2024)

Loyiso Ludidi and Others v S (983/2022; 056/2024) [2024] ZASCA 162; 2025 (1) SACR 225 (SCA) (29 November 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

983/2022; 056/2024

Judges

Nicholls, Hughes, Molefe, Dolamo, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the appellants spent a lengthy period of five years and eight months in custody awaiting trial, this fact alone does not constitute a substantial and compelling circumstance justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment. The delays in the proceedings were largely attributable to the appellants and their legal representatives, including unsuccessful bail applications and repeated non-attendance. The offences were heinous contract killings, and the appellants acted as hired assassins willing to kill for payment. The co…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Awaiting Trial Period
• Life Imprisonment
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Sentencing Discretion

Jose v S (A62/2023)

Jose v S (A62/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 570 (11 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A62/2023

Judges

FJ Van der Westhuizen, WA Karam

The court found that the magistrate had properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's time spent in custody awaiting trial, her personal circumstances, and the aggravating features of the case, notably the large quantity of cocaine imported. The sentence imposed was not found to be shockingly inappropriate, and there was no misdirection by the court below. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Drug Trafficking
• Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Awaiting Trial Period

Khoenyane v S (CA&R6/2020)

Khoenyane v S (CA&R6/2020) [2020] ZANCHC 51 (7 August 2020)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R6/2020

Judges

Mamosebo, Van Tonder

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a 15-year minimum sentence for murder, holding that the appellant’s age and 13 months in custody were not substantial and compelling circumstances.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Youth As Mitigation
• Awaiting Trial Period
• Gang Related Offences
• Minimum-sentencing

Maluleka v S (A92/2018)

Maluleka v S (A92/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 165 (26 October 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A92/2018

Judges

P.E. Molitsoane, A.F. Jordaan

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a 15-year minimum sentence for robbery with aggravating circumstances, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances.

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Minimum Sentencing
• Remorse
• Role In Offence
• Awaiting Trial Period
• Robbery-with-aggravating-circumstances

Seitshili (Seitshiro) v S (A21/2009)

Seitshili (Seitshiro) v S (A21/2009) [2011] ZAFSHC 143 (1 September 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A21/2009

Judges

Van Zyl, Mathebula

High Court appeal in a rape of a minor case. Conviction was confirmed, but life imprisonment was replaced with 20 years after the court found sentencing misdirection.

• Rape Of Minor
• Sentencing Principles
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Awaiting Trial Period
• Life Imprisonment
• Judicial Discretion

Ncoto v S (A253/2010)

Ncoto v S (A253/2010) [2010] ZAWCHC 445 (20 August 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A253/2010

Judges

Fortuin, Bozalek

The court found that the magistrate did not misapply the minimum sentence legislation, as he made it clear that he was sentencing within the ordinary jurisdiction and not under the Act's life sentence provisions. However, the magistrate erred by failing to give sufficient weight to the lengthy period the appellant spent in custody awaiting trial, which amounted to approximately five years. The court held that, regardless of the reasons for delay, the time spent in custody must be properly considered in mitigation. Given the severity of the offences and the circumstances, the court determined…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Minimum Sentence Legislation
• Awaiting Trial Period
• Rape
• Kidnapping
• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm

S v Brophy and Another (A06/06)

S v Brophy and Another (A06/06) [2006] ZAGPHC 83; 2007 (2) SACR 56 (W) (29 August 2006)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A06/06

Judges

I W Schwartzman, TM Masipa, H Saldulker

The court found that both accused gave false and improbable explanations for their presence at the scene and conduct before and after the crime, supporting the inference that they acted with common purpose to rob and murder. The trial court correctly convicted both accused of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances. However, the sentences imposed failed to account for the entire period spent in custody awaiting trial and should have been adjusted accordingly. The court held that the minimum sentence legislation applied, but substantial and compelling circumstances existed, including…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Minimum Sentence Legislation
• Common Purpose
• Awaiting Trial Period
• Sentencing Principles