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 Funaphi and Others (40/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 26 (28 February 2024)
The High Court convicted three accused of murder, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and defeating the ends of justice, but found only theft intent on housebreaking.
Ndebele and Others v S (Leave to Appeal) (CC71/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 246 (21 February 2024)
The court found that none of the applicants demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal. For accused 1, the grounds raised were either contradictory or unsupported by the facts and law, and the prescribed sentences were imposed after proper consideration of personal circumstances and time spent in custody. For accused 2, the evidence established his participation in the planning and execution of the murder, and his actions constituted common purpose. For accused 3, the evidence showed his involvement in facilitating the crime, including arranging the firearm, transporting the perpe…
Source excerpt
Fundamo v S (A220/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 199 (30 January 2024)
The trial court erred in relying on the co-accused's statement to convict the appellant, as section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Act prohibits the use of a confession by one accused against another. The statement in question was not a true confession but an extra-curial admission, which is hearsay and inadmissible unless admitted under statutory exceptions, which the trial court failed to consider. The appellant's conduct during the statement did not amount to an admission of guilt, nor did it satisfy the requirements for common purpose liability as set out in S v Mgedezi. The evidence showe…
Source excerpt
Salman and Another v S - Appeal (CA&R 69/2021) [2023] ZAECMHC 59 (14 November 2023)
The High Court set aside convictions entered on guilty pleas, finding the section 112 statements defective and the plea proceedings unfair.
Walters and Another v S (A83/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 918 (24 November 2022)
The court held that the reference to section 51(2) in the charge sheet did not preclude the application of section 51(1) for sentencing purposes. The appellants were charged with murder committed in the furtherance of a common purpose, which falls under Part I of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and attracts the minimum sentence of life imprisonment. The magistrate properly informed the appellants of the sentencing risks before their plea, and their constitutional rights to a fair trial were not breached. The sentencing regime is determined by the proven elements of the offence, n…
Source excerpt
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Abbu and Others (D8053/2019) [2022] ZAKZDHC 45 (31 October 2022)
The court found that the applicant had established, on a balance of probabilities, reasonable grounds to believe that the defendants may be convicted of the offences charged and that a confiscation order may be made against them under POCA. The evidence presented, including forensic reports, financial records, and communications, demonstrated coordinated conduct and enrichment through manipulation of municipal procurement processes. The court held that at the restraint stage, it is not necessary to prove actual benefit or guilt, but only to show reasonable grounds for belief in possible convi…
Source excerpt
Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Cape v Swarts and Another (KS19/2016) [2022] ZANCHC 57; 2023 (1) SACR 101 (NCK) (7 October 2022)
The High Court held that the State’s s 319 application raised factual disputes, not questions of law, and dismissed the appeal.
Masilo v Minister of Police and Another (205/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 234 (19 September 2022)
The court found that the arresting officer failed to exercise discretion and arrested the Plaintiff solely for being present in a group, without any reasonable suspicion or evidence linking him to the murder. The Plaintiff was denied an opportunity to explain his innocence, and exculpatory evidence from a key witness was ignored. The prosecution proceeded without reasonable and probable cause, relying only on a statement that identified another individual as the perpetrator. The Plaintiff's version and the witness's exoneration were uncontested. The Defendants failed to justify the arrest, de…
Source excerpt
Numsa obo Aubrey Dhludhlu and 147 Others v Marley Pipe Systems (SA) (Pty) Ltd (CCT 233/21) [2022] ZACC 30; (2022) 43 ILJ 2269 (CC); 2022 (12) BCLR 1474 (CC); [2022] 12 BLLR 1091 (CC); 2023 (1) SA 338 (CC) (22 August 2022)
The Constitutional Court held that the Labour Appeal Court erred by imposing a legal obligation on employees to dissociate themselves from acts of violence or to intervene to avoid liability under common purpose. Mere presence at the scene and failure to intervene or dissociate does not constitute association or complicity. There must be evidence, direct or circumstantial, that the individual associated themselves with the violence, manifested by some act and with the requisite intention. The 41 employees were not identified as having participated in or associated with the assault, and the ev…
Source excerpt
Qurashi and Others v The State (1166/2018) [2022] ZASCA 118; [2022] 4 All SA 295 (SCA); 2022 (2) SACR 459 (SCA) (22 August 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the searches and seizures, although conducted without warrants, did not violate the appellants' constitutional rights in a manner that rendered the trial unfair or was detrimental to the administration of justice. The searches were either conducted with the permission of the letting agent or pursuant to lawful arrest, and the chain of custody of exhibits was maintained. The court distinguished between real and testimonial evidence, finding that the evidence obtained was real and not conscriptive or self-incriminatory. The court found that the hearsay evid…
Source excerpt
Explore more
