South Africa Case Law

S v Mositoane (17/2025)

S v Mositoane (17/2025) [2025] ZAFSHC 235 (25 July 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

17/2025

Judge

Ntshulana AJ

The court found that the State witnesses, Sophie and Tshepo Sebusi, provided credible and consistent evidence that the accused intentionally drove his motor vehicle into both the deceased and the complainant multiple times. The medical and forensic evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts, showing multiple injuries consistent with repeated impacts. The accused's version was found to be farfetched, inconsistent, and manufactured as an afterthought. The court concluded that the accused acted with direct intent to kill, and that the killing was premeditated, as evidenced by his conduct befo…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Premeditation
• Criminal Intent
• Burden Of Proof
• Criminal Law Amendment Act

S v Masukunya (CC82/2023)

S v Masukunya (CC82/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1047 (15 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC82/2023

Judge

Strijdom

The court found that the accused, a 38-year-old man, assaulted his 9-year-old son with open hands and by kicking him, resulting in multiple blunt force injuries to the head. The medical evidence established that the injuries were severe and directly caused the death. The accused's version was rejected as not reasonably possibly true due to material contradictions and inherent improbabilities, including his claimed lack of awareness of the injuries. The court concluded that, although direct intent to kill was not established, the accused subjectively foresaw the possibility that his conduct co…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Dolus Eventualis
• Culpable Homicide
• Criminal Intent
• Burden Of Proof

Tuta v The State (CCT 308/20)

Tuta v The State (CCT 308/20) [2022] ZACC 19; 2023 (2) BCLR 179 (CC); 2024 (1) SACR 242 (CC) (31 May 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 308/20

Judges

Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Mlambo, Theron, Tshiqi, Unterhalter

The Constitutional Court held that the trial court misdirected itself on putative private defence, set aside Tuta’s murder and attempted murder convictions, and ordered his release.

• Putative Private Defence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Minimum Sentencing
• Judicial Error
• Criminal Intent
• Appeal Jurisdiction

S v Mackay (326/2021)

S v Mackay (326/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 17 (22 February 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

326/2021

Judges

Nziweni, Lekhuleni

On automatic review, the High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction for attempted housebreaking, finding the record did not adequately prove the offence charged.

• Attempted Housebreaking
• Criminal Intent
• Malicious Injury To Property
• Section 112 Procedure
• Section 262 Qualified Verdict
• Attempted-housebreaking

Coko v S (CA&R 219/2020)

Coko v S (CA&R 219/2020) [2021] ZAECGHC 91; [2021] 4 All SA 768 (ECG); 2022 (1) SACR 24 (ECG) (8 October 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 219/2020

Judges

T Ngcukaitobi, N Gqamana

The appellate court found that the trial court committed material misdirections in its factual findings regarding consent and intention. The evidence did not support the conclusion that the appellant acted intentionally knowing there was no consent. The complainant's conduct during the encounter did not manifest an express or implied refusal of consent prior to penetration. The trial court erroneously relied on the complainant's status as a virgin and extracted concessions from the appellant based on incorrect renditions of the evidence. The State failed to discharge its onus to prove the app…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Consent
• Criminal Intent
• Fair Trial Rights
• Sexual Offences Act
• Onus Of Proof

G.L.R v S (CA&R 41/19)

G.L.R v S (CA&R 41/19) [2020] ZAECGHC 31; 2020 (2) SACR 30 (ECG) (29 April 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 41/19

Judges

Rugunanan, S X Mapoma

The court held that the maintenance order did not lapse automatically when the child attained majority. The wording 'the minor child' identified the beneficiary by reference and did not qualify the duration of the order. The appellant's duty to pay maintenance continued until the order was varied or terminated by the court, regardless of the child's age, as she was not self-supporting. The appellant consciously chose to rely on advice from a layperson, disregarding competent legal advice, and did not act out of ignorance or error. His conduct demonstrated knowledge of unlawfulness and a lack…

Source excerpt

• Maintenance Order Enforcement
• Failure To Pay Maintenance
• Criminal Intent
• Locus Standi
• Variation Of Maintenance Order

Vries v S (A15/2016)

Vries v S (A15/2016) [2019] ZAFSHC 171 (19 September 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A15/2016

Judges

Opperman, Moeng

The High Court substituted a conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm with common assault, finding intent for grievous harm not proved.

• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Common Assault
• Dolus Eventualis
• Inferential Reasoning
• Criminal Intent
• Cross Examination Failure

Van Schalkwyk v S (680/2015)

Van Schalkwyk v S (680/2015) [2016] ZASCA 49; 2016 (2) SACR 334 (SCA) (31 March 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

680/2015

Judges

Lewis, Tshiqi, Willis, Plasket, Baartman

The Supreme Court of Appeal replaced a murder conviction with culpable homicide after finding the evidence did not prove dolus eventualis.

• Dolus Eventualis
• Culpable Homicide
• Mens Rea
• Murder
• Sentencing
• Criminal Intent

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng v Pistorius (96/2015)

Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng v Pistorius (96/2015) [2015] ZASCA 204; [2016] 1 All SA 346 (SCA); 2016 (2) SA 317 (SCA); 2016 (1) SACR 431 (SCA) (3 December 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

96/2015

Judges

Mpati, Mhlantla, Leach, Majiedt, Baartman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Pistorius acted with dolus eventualis, set aside culpable homicide, substituted murder, and remitted sentencing.

• Dolus Eventualis
• Error In Objecto
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Putative Self Defence
• Criminal Intent
• Competent Verdict

Minnies and Others v S (881/2011)

Minnies and Others v S (881/2011) [2012] ZASCA 102; 2012 (2) SACR 386 (SCA) (1 June 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

881/2011

Judges

Mthiyane, Leach, Tshiqi, Petse, Ndita

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that 'tendering' under s 34(1)(b) of the South African Reserve Bank Act requires an offer of counterfeit money as genuine legal tender. In this case, all parties involved knew the banknotes were counterfeit and there was no attempt to pass them off as genuine. Therefore, the appellants' conduct did not amount to unlawful tendering as envisaged by the statute. The court found that the lower courts erred in their interpretation and application of the law, and the precedent in S v Modisakeng was wrongly decided. The convictions and sentences were set aside.

Source excerpt

• Counterfeit Currency
• Statutory Interpretation
• Tendering Vs Uttering
• Criminal Intent