South Africa Case Law

Molao v S (A44/2024)

Molao v S (A44/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 647 (9 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A44/2024

Judges

W Domingo, L.A. Retief

The appeal succeeded because the conviction for attempted murder was not sustainable on the facts and law. The weapon used by the appellant was a blank pistol, which is excluded from the definition of 'firearm' under the Firearms Control Act. The charge sheet and evidence did not support a finding that the appellant attempted to kill Sergeant Mashala by 'pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger,' as the appellant was acquitted on the charges of possession and pointing of a firearm. The essential elements of attempted murder, particularly intention, were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. T…

Source excerpt

• Attempted Murder
• Firearms Control Act
• Blank Pistol Exclusion
• Intention
• Conviction And Sentence
• Appeal Upheld

Mogaecho v S (A47/2022)

Mogaecho v S (A47/2022) [2025] ZAFSHC 120 (24 April 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A47/2022

Judges

Mhlambi, Van Rhyn

The appeal succeeded because the separation of trials was granted without disclosure of grounds, resulting in prejudice to the appellant. The trial court failed to exercise its discretion judicially, as the appellant was convicted on the basis of common purpose using evidence against co-accused who were no longer present to refute it. Furthermore, the incomplete and reconstructed record, done without the appellant's input, violated his constitutional right to a fair trial and appeal. The charge sheet was found to be legally defective, and the sentence was imposed without proper consideration…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Trials
• Common Purpose
• Fair Trial Rights
• Incomplete Record On Appeal
• Conviction And Sentence
• Appeal Procedure

S v Ngcobo (R278/2023)

S v Ngcobo (R278/2023) [2023] ZAKZPHC 120; 2024 (2) SACR 34 (KZP) (20 October 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

R278/2023

Judges

Nicholson, P C Bezuidenhout

Special review of a plea-agreement conviction was upheld because statutory requirements under s 105A were not properly met.

• Plea Bargaining
• Domestic Violence Act
• Review Proceedings
• Conviction And Sentence
• Judicial Quality Assurance
• Special-review

S v Lehaba and Another

S v Lehaba and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 339; A59/2019 (25 May 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A59/2019

Judges

Sethusha-Shongwe, Tolmay

The court found that the trial record was incomplete and that the reconstruction procedure was not properly followed. Crucial and material parts of the evidence in chief and cross-examination were missing, which encroached upon the appellants' right to a fair hearing on appeal. The discrepancies and omissions in the record were vital and fatal to the proper adjudication of the appeal. Referring the matter back for further reconstruction would be futile, as the magistrate's notes were lost, the prosecutor's notes were unavailable, and the prosecutor had resigned. The only remedy to protect the…

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Record Reconstruction
• Appeal Procedure
• Conviction And Sentence
• Section 35 Constitution

Sebati v S (4993/2022)

Sebati v S (4993/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 10 (25 January 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4993/2022

Judge

Mathebula

The High Court dismissed an application for bail pending appeal, finding that the convicted applicant failed to show that release was in the interests of justice.

• Bail Pending Appeal
• Interests Of Justice
• Conviction And Sentence
• Flight Risk
• Bail-pending-appeal
• Interests-of-justice

Ngqulunga v S (2021/A102)

Ngqulunga v S (2021/A102) [2022] ZAGPJHC 547 (9 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/A102

Judges

Dlamini, Matsemela

The court found that the defects in the record were substantial, with the entire evidence in chief and cross-examination of the complainant missing, as well as the absence of the appellant's evidence. The magistrate's judgment was brief and did not adequately summarize the evidence. Attempts to reconstruct the record were unsuccessful due to the unavailability of key participants. Given the passage of twelve years since conviction and the impossibility of meaningful reconstruction, the record was deemed wholly inadequate for proper consideration of the appeal. Consequently, the conviction and…

Source excerpt

• Incomplete Record On Appeal
• Conviction And Sentence
• Reconstruction Of Record
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Attempted Murder
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearm

S v Singh (R19/21)

S v Singh (R19/21) [2021] ZAKZPHC 82 (1 April 2021)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

R19/21

Judges

Mossop AJ, Seegobin J

On automatic review, the High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction for drunk driving because the magistrate did not properly establish impairment or explain mandatory licence suspension.

• Driving Under Influence
• Automatic Review
• Conviction And Sentence
• Suspension Of Driving Licence
• Driving-under-influence
• Automatic-review

S v Mentoor (C946/2018)

S v Mentoor (C946/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 139; 2020 (1) SACR 104 (WCC) (28 October 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

C946/2018

Judges

R.C.A. Henney, M.I. Samela

The High Court found that the Magistrate erred in reconstructing the record of the plea proceedings without proper certification and by informally confirming the reconstructed record with the accused. The Magistrate further erred by questioning and convicting the accused twice on the same charge under section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which is not permitted unless the original proceedings have been set aside. The accused's denial of knowledge of unlawfulness during the second questioning meant that an essential element of the offence was not admitted, and the proceedings should…

Source excerpt

• Reconstruction Of Record
• Double Jeopardy
• Section 112 1 B Procedure
• Conviction And Sentence
• Powers Of Magistrate
• Review Proceedings

S v Fredericks (293/2018)

S v Fredericks (293/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 153 (5 September 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

293/2018

Judges

L.B.J. Moeng, P.E. Molitsoane

The magistrate failed to properly question the accused in terms of section 112(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The questioning was leading and did not elicit the factual basis for the accused's plea of guilty. The accused was not given an opportunity to explain the circumstances, and the magistrate did not ascertain whether the accused admitted all the factual allegations necessary for conviction. Furthermore, the State did not prove that the speed measuring device was reliable, properly set up, and operated by a trained person, as required by law. The magistrate's concession that the re…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Automatic Review
• Speeding Offence
• Judicial Questioning
• Conviction And Sentence

Ndawonde and Another v S (A107/2018)

Ndawonde and Another v S (A107/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 61 (4 March 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A107/2018

Judges

Wright, Wanless

The court held that the provisions of section 93ter of the Magistrates' Courts Act are peremptory in murder trials before a regional court. The purported waiver of assessors by the appellants, even if valid, was made too late in the proceedings and did not cure the irregularity. The judicial officer failed to administer the required oath to assessors before the trial, resulting in a fatal procedural irregularity. Following the precedent in S v Gayiya, the appeals must be upheld and the convictions and sentences set aside. The court made no finding on whether the appellants should or could be…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Assessors In Criminal Trial
• Waiver Of Rights
• Magistrates Courts Act
• Conviction And Sentence