South Africa Case Law

S v Sithole (183/2002)

S v Sithole (183/2002) [2004] ZASCA 77; 2005 (2) SACR 504 (SCA) (16 September 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

183/2002

Judges

Cameron, Conradie, van Heerden

The court found the appellant's account of ignorance regarding the dagga to be highly improbable, given the circumstances and the strong odour emanating from the vehicle. The appellant's failure to provide an immediate exculpatory explanation and his later untruthful assertion about waiving his right to silence undermined his credibility and supported the inference that he was knowingly dealing in dagga. However, the State failed to prove the market value of the dagga as required by the minimum sentencing legislation, having relied on notional street value rather than the actual value at the…

Source excerpt

• Drug Dealing
• Minimum Sentencing
• Market Value Assessment
• Right To Silence
• Credibility Of Accused

S v Kameli (CA&R 24/96)

S v Kameli (CA&R 24/96) [1997] ZAECHC 9 (7 February 1997)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

CA&R 24/96

Judges

Ebrahim, Dhlodhlo

The High Court upheld a conviction for assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm and confirmed a two-year sentence after rejecting the appeal.

• Assault With Intent To Commit Grievous Bodily Harm
• Failure To Cross Examine
• Credibility Of Accused
• Sentencing Principles
• First Offender
• Judicial Duties

S v Mtsweni (131/84)

S v Mtsweni (131/84) [1984] ZASCA 150; [1985] 3 All SA 344 (AD) (29 November 1984)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

131/84

Judges

Rabie, Jansen, Miller, Smalberger, Vivier

The court held that circumstantial evidence and the accused’s lies did not prove murder or robbery, but did support theft of the deceased’s vehicle.

• Circumstantial Evidence
• Inference Vs Speculation
• Credibility Of Accused
• Theft Vs Robbery
• Murder
• Sentencing