South Africa Case Law

Hartman v Road Accident Fund (4363/2011)

Hartman v Road Accident Fund (4363/2011) [2025] ZAWCHC 320 (30 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4363/2011

Judge

Ralarala

The court found that the Plaintiff established on a balance of probabilities that the fatal collision was caused by a tyre abandoned on the roadway by an insured truck driver or owner. The evidence, though circumstantial, was credible and consistent, supported by independent witnesses who had no interest in the outcome. The Defendant failed to produce any evidence to the contrary and relied solely on denials and challenges to witness reliability, which were satisfactorily addressed. The court held that the truck driver or owner was negligent in failing to remove the tyre or warn other motoris…

Source excerpt

• Road Accident Fund Act
• Loss Of Support
• Negligence
• Circumstantial Evidence

S v Ciya (KS11/2024)

S v Ciya (KS11/2024) [2025] ZANCHC 59 (21 July 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

KS11/2024

Judge

Lever

The High Court acquitted the accused of murder and defeating justice after finding the State’s single-witness and circumstantial evidence unreliable.

• Murder
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Single Witness Rule
• Minimum Sentencing
• Domestic Violence
• Attempt To Defeat Justice

S v Mgqobozi (CC33/2017)

S v Mgqobozi (CC33/2017) [2025] ZAECMHC 53 (12 June 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CC33/2017

Judge

Jolwana

The court convicted the accused of kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances, two murders and rape, relying on circumstantial and forensic evidence.

• Murder
• Rape
• Kidnapping
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Dna Evidence
• Circumstantial Evidence

Moepya and Others v S (Appeal) (A289/2022)

Moepya and Others v S (Appeal) (A289/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 605 (6 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A289/2022

Judges

PD Phahlane, Francis-Subbiah

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly evaluated the totality of the evidence, including circumstantial and forensic evidence, and properly applied the relevant legal principles. The appellants' failure to testify in the face of compelling evidence justified an adverse inference. The presumption of possession under section 117(2) of the Firearms Control Act was correctly applied to the first appellant, who controlled the premises. The evidence supported joint possession and common purpose among the appellants. The trial court considered all relevant sentencing factors, includin…

Source excerpt

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Firearms Control Act
• Joint Possession
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Sentencing Principles
• Right To Silence

Machena v S (A74/2024)

Machena v S (A74/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 525 (27 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A74/2024

Judges

C I Moosa, MMP Mdalana-Mayisela

The High Court dismissed Damison Machena’s appeal against murder and robbery convictions, confirming life imprisonment and finding common purpose proved.

• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Common Purpose
• Minimum Sentencing
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Criminal-appeal

S v Mtshali (CC59/2024)

S v Mtshali (CC59/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 587 (23 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC59/2024

Judge

Johnson

High Court criminal judgment convicting the accused of murder and rape after rejecting his claim that his semen was planted and that another man forced the acts.

• Murder
• Rape
• Sexual Offences Act
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Admissibility Of Confession

Monamudi v S (A60/2025)

Monamudi v S (A60/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 524 (22 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A60/2025

Judge

Munzhelele

High Court bail appeal dismissed after the appellant failed to show exceptional circumstances under section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

• Bail Application
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Onus Of Proof
• Balance Of Probabilities
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Bail-application

S v Boomgaard (CC21/2024)

S v Boomgaard (CC21/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 516 (16 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC21/2024

Judge

Holland-Muter

The court convicted the accused of premeditated murders, robbery with aggravating circumstances, theft, and fraud, relying on strong circumstantial, forensic, and electronic evidence.

• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Theft
• Fraud
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Minimum Sentences

Director of Public Prosecutions Limpopo v Mbuyane (47/2021)

Director of Public Prosecutions Limpopo v Mbuyane (47/2021) [2025] ZALMPPHC 89 (7 May 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

47/2021

Judge

KL Pillay

The High Court dismissed the State’s bid to reserve questions of law over a DNA-based acquittal, finding the issues were factual and the trial court had assessed the evidence holistically.

• Dna Evidence
• Reservation Of Questions Of Law
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Burden Of Proof
• Reservation-of-questions-of-law
• Dna-evidence

Prevost v S (Appeal) (SS 19/2015)

Prevost v S (Appeal) (SS 19/2015) [2025] ZAGPJHC 360 (28 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS 19/2015

Judges

Mdalana-Mayisela, Dosio, Moosa

The High Court dismissed Candice Prevost’s appeal against her murder conviction, holding that she acted in common purpose and that the crime was planned.

• Common Purpose
• Criminal Capacity
• Premeditated Murder
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Appeal Procedure
• Common-purpose