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 Rooy (Review) (CA & R 15/2025) [2025] ZAECMKHC 10 (11 February 2025)
The High Court set aside a guilty conviction and sentence after finding that the accused’s section 112(2) statement did not admit all elements of the Domestic Violence Act charge.
S v Makuyana (R09/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 25 (13 February 2020)
The court found that, although the accused's section 112(2) statement repeated much of the charge sheet's wording, it also included admissions that he trespassed unlawfully and without permission and that he was an illegal foreigner with no defence to the charges. These additional admissions demonstrated that the accused understood the nature of the offences and admitted all essential elements. The court held that, in line with the principle in S v Mbuyisa, the use of charge sheet language does not automatically invalidate a guilty plea if the facts admitted are sufficient. The convictions an…
Source excerpt
S v Motlibeli (R88/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 160 (19 September 2019)
Automatic review of a speeding conviction was set aside because the section 112 plea inquiry did not establish all required admissions.
S v Ramahetlane and Others (7/2019 – 24/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 19 (7 February 2019)
The High Court found that neither the questioning by the magistrate in the first 17 matters nor the admissions made by the accused in the last matter met the requirements established by the full bench in The State v Enoc Phuzi. The court emphasized that the principle of stare decisis applies, and as such, all convictions and sentences must be set aside for failing to comply with the prescribed standards for conviction and sentencing in automatic and special review proceedings under section 59(4) of the National Road Traffic Act.
Source excerpt
S v Magobotwane (239/2017, 29/2017, K513/2017, A506/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 700 (3 October 2017)
Review of a guilty-plea conviction set aside after the court found section 112(1)(b) requirements were not met and the accused’s plea failed to establish intent and unlawfulness.
S v Masiu (146/2013) [2013] ZAFSHC 151 (15 September 2013)
The conviction was based on the accused's ex post facto knowledge of the effect of alcohol on his faculties, rather than knowledge at the time of consumption. Mens rea was therefore not established beyond reasonable doubt, rendering the conviction unsustainable. Furthermore, the magistrate erred in not considering the applicability of section 103 of the Firearms Control Act, as a conviction involving alcohol abuse triggers an enquiry into fitness to possess a firearm. The conviction and sentence were not in accordance with justice and must be set aside.
Source excerpt
S v Manale (108/2008) [2008] ZAFSHC 16 (19 March 2008)
On special review, the High Court set aside a conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm because the accused’s section 112(2) statement did not admit all essential facts.
S v Raadt (615/2001) [2001] ZANCHC 22 (5 October 2001)
The High Court set aside a conviction and sentence because the guilty-plea questioning failed to cover all essential elements, including unlawfulness, under section 112(1)(b).
S v Sibuyi (535/90) [1992] ZASCA 196 (19 November 1992)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the regional court erred in convicting the appellant on four unspecified counts of theft and one of attempted theft, as the evidence did not link the appellant's admissions to the specific charges. The admissions lacked sufficient detail regarding time, place, and property, and the State did not utilize the provisions of section 94 of the Criminal Procedure Act to charge a course of conduct. The conviction for attempted theft on a conspiracy charge was also unsustainable, as no overt act amounting to an attempt was proven. However, the evidence supported…
Source excerpt
Explore more
