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
Jacobs v S (Review) (02/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 20; - (29 January 2025)
The High Court set aside a conviction and three-year sentence after finding the accused pleaded guilty to a different offence than the one charged.
S v M.V.M and Another (Review) (REV 150/2024) [2024] ZALMPPHC 178 (15 November 2024)
On automatic review, the High Court replaced robbery convictions on count 1 with theft after finding the phone was obtained by misrepresentation, not force.
S v Zaanazo (HC 05/2023) [2023] ZANWHC 221 (24 November 2023)
The court found that the conviction of attempted murder was a gross irregularity, as it is not a competent verdict on a charge of robbery under section 260 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence did not prove robbery with aggravating circumstances but did establish assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The discretion to appoint assessors in robbery matters is not mandatory, and the misunderstanding by the magistrate and defence was based on a statutory amendment that was never enacted. The accused's previous convictions, seriousness of the offence, and time spent in pretrial de…
Source excerpt
Syster v S - Appeal (A101/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 219 (4 August 2023)
The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the Vodacom employees was inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding their inability to identify the appellant and the presence of a knife. The magistrate erred by accepting their evidence without proper scrutiny and by rejecting the appellant's version, which was corroborated by a State witness and not so improbable as to be reasonably possibly false. The inspection in loco was not properly recorded or subjected to challenge, and thus could not be relied upon as real evidence. Th…
Source excerpt
Ntsala v S (A166/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 227 (4 October 2021)
The High Court set aside a theft-of-stock conviction, substituting a section 3 Stock Theft Act conviction for two cattle and reducing the sentence.
Mbiza v S (A08/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 43 (11 August 2021)
The High Court upheld an appeal against a conviction for common assault, finding a misdirection and holding the state had not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Chimola v S (A054/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 169 (7 May 2021)
High Court appeal where conviction for robbery with aggravating circumstances was altered to housebreaking with intent to steal and theft, plus common assault; sentence reduced to eight years.
Gabela v S (A60/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 280 (6 November 2020)
The appeal succeeded because the charge sheet did not allege common purpose, and the appellant was not forewarned that the State would rely on this doctrine to secure a conviction for murder. This omission prejudiced the appellant and rendered the trial unfair, as he may have conducted his defence differently had he known. The evidence did not establish that the appellant stabbed the deceased, but did show that he assaulted the deceased with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The conviction for murder and the related sentence were set aside and replaced with a conviction and sentence for a…
Source excerpt
Nhathe v S (A09/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 445 (18 August 2020)
The court found that the complainant had prior knowledge of the appellant, having seen him regularly over a year, and that the identification was made under favourable conditions, including adequate lighting and sufficient opportunity to observe the appellant. The evidence was corroborated by the community's apprehension of the appellant and the identification parade. The court held that the charge of assault was a competent verdict to attempted murder and was distinct from the robbery charge, thus not amounting to a duplication of convictions. The court a quo properly applied the cautionary…
Source excerpt
Bam v S (A144/18) [2020] ZAWCHC 68; [2020] 4 All SA 21 (WCC); 2020 (2) SACR 584 (WCC) (20 July 2020)
The court found that the complainant's identification of the appellant, though non-specific and prompted by police, was sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of two section 204 witnesses who described the appellant's involvement in disposing of the stolen television. The appellant's denial was rejected as implausible. On sentencing, the court held that the magistrate erred in imposing separate sentences for housebreaking and robbery on a single composite charge, resulting in a duplication of convictions and punishments. The correct approach is to impose a single sentence for the principal…
Source excerpt
Explore more
