South Africa Case Law

S v Ndlovu (CCD30/2025)

S v Ndlovu (CCD30/2025) [2025] ZAKZDHC 52 (5 August 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

CCD30/2025

Judge

Hlatshwayo AJ

The court found that the accused intentionally and with premeditation murdered his ex-partner and her mother, and attempted to murder his son. The evidence, including forensic findings, witness testimony, and the deceased's affidavit, established a pattern of domestic violence, threats, and goal-directed conduct. The accused's claim of intoxication was rejected as false and contrived, given his ability to recall details before and after the incident and his purposeful actions during the offence. The court held that the accused unlawfully possessed firearms and ammunition on both relevant date…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearm
• Unlawful Possession Of Ammunition
• Criminal Capacity
• Intoxication

S v D.F (Sentence) (KS23/23)

S v D.F (Sentence) (KS23/23) [2025] ZANCHC 58 (25 July 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

KS23/23

Judge

Lever

The High Court sentenced an accused, convicted under the statutory voluntary-intoxication offence, to an effective five years' imprisonment for assault, kidnapping, murder and property damage.

• Voluntary Intoxication
• Sentencing Principles
• Criminal Capacity
• Statutory Offence Under Claa
• Rehabilitation
• Minimum Sentences

Prevost v S (Appeal) (SS 19/2015)

Prevost v S (Appeal) (SS 19/2015) [2025] ZAGPJHC 360 (28 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS 19/2015

Judges

Mdalana-Mayisela, Dosio, Moosa

The High Court dismissed Candice Prevost’s appeal against her murder conviction, holding that she acted in common purpose and that the crime was planned.

• Common Purpose
• Criminal Capacity
• Premeditated Murder
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Appeal Procedure
• Common-purpose

S v Pholoholo (Review) (HC 01/2025)

S v Pholoholo (Review) (HC 01/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 31 (14 February 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC 01/2025

Judges

A H Petersen, A Reddy

The High Court found that the Acting Regional Magistrate failed to conduct the necessary factual enquiry required by sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Procedure Act before referring the accused for psychiatric observation and making subsequent orders. The referral was based solely on the legal representative's statement without objective evidence or proper enquiry. The panel of psychiatrists was improperly constituted, as the accused was charged with murder and should have been examined by three psychiatrists, not two. The Acting Regional Magistrate misapplied section 78(6)(b)(ii), erroneous…

Source excerpt

• Mental Health Care Act
• Criminal Capacity
• Fitness To Stand Trial
• Gross Irregularity
• Psychiatric Observation

Nkonwane v S (CA 49/20)

Nkonwane v S (CA 49/20) [2024] ZANWHC 93 (28 March 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 49/20

Judges

Reddy, Roux

The court found that the psychiatric report complied with the requirements of section 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act, both in terms of panel composition and observation period. The appointment of a third psychiatrist for the accused is permissive, not mandatory, and the appellant was observed for the requisite thirty days. The report adequately described the nature of the enquiry. The amendment of the charge sheet to invoke section 51 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was not prejudicial to the appellant, as he was afforded legal representation and the opportunity to address the court. The…

Source excerpt

• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Amendment Act
• Criminal Capacity
• Psychiatric Evaluation
• Minimum Sentencing
• Child Protection

S v Ndou (CC02/2023)

S v Ndou (CC02/2023) [2024] ZALMPTHC 20 (2 February 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

CC02/2023

Judge

Tshidada

The court found the accused fit to stand trial after rejecting a psychiatric report as unreliable and unsupported by proper factual inquiry.

• Fitness To Stand Trial
• Criminal Capacity
• Mental Illness Defence
• Expert Evidence
• Onus Of Proof
• Fitness-to-stand-trial

S v Mkhwebane (CC25/23)

S v Mkhwebane (CC25/23) [2024] ZAMPMHC 10; 2024 (1) SACR 415 (ML) (29 January 2024)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

CC25/23

Judge

Msibi SM-AJ

The High Court acquitted the accused of murder, convicted him under section 1(1) of the General Law Amendment Act for intoxicated offending, and imposed a partly suspended sentence.

• Voluntary Intoxication
• Criminal Capacity
• Contravention Of General Law Amendment Act
• Sentencing Principles
• Correctional Supervision
• Voluntary-intoxication

S v Thupa (07/2023)

S v Thupa (07/2023) [2023] ZAMPMHC 27 (23 August 2023)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

07/2023

Judge

Langa

On special review, the court found no formal order had been made detaining the accused in a psychiatric hospital and remitted the matter for further hearing.

• Criminal Capacity
• Mental Illness And Trial Fitness
• Psychiatric Observation
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Detention Orders
• Criminal-capacity

Grootetjie v S (A78/2023)

Grootetjie v S (A78/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 146 (14 June 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A78/2023

Judges

Wille, Bremridge

The court found that the appellant failed to establish any factual basis for his defence of sane automatism or lack of criminal capacity. His detailed recollection of events and actions before, during, and after the offence contradicted his claim of involuntariness. The evidence, including medical and forensic findings, confirmed the commission of the offence and the appellant's awareness of his conduct. The court held that the sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate given the gravity of the crime, the age of the victim, and the absence of substantial and compelling circumstances to jus…

Source excerpt

• Rape Of Minor
• Minimum Sentencing
• Criminal Capacity
• Sane Automatism
• Sentencing Principles

S v Nhlanhla (SS03/2023)

S v Nhlanhla (SS03/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 547 (23 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS03/2023

Judge

Kumalo

The court found that the accused's conduct was premeditated and that he was aware of his actions at the time of the offence. The accused made repeated threats, acted purposefully, and uttered incriminating statements during the commission of the crime. The evidence of intoxication was insufficient to establish a lack of criminal capacity, as the accused demonstrated awareness and intent throughout the day. The defence of temporary non-pathological incapacity was rejected, and the accused's claim of amnesia was contradicted by eyewitness testimony and his own conduct. The State discharged its…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Criminal Capacity
• Non Pathological Incapacity
• Intoxication
• Onus Of Proof
• Premeditation