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

Mathe v S (Leave to Appeal) (CC145/2017)

Mathe v S (Leave to Appeal) (CC145/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 471 (2 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC145/2017

Judge

Johnson

The High Court granted leave to appeal against sentence after finding arguable errors in a dangerous-criminal declaration and sentencing on the murder count.

• Sentencing
• Dangerous Criminal Declaration
• Leave To Appeal
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Leave-to-appeal

Mntungwa v S (Appeal) (A156/2023)

Mntungwa v S (Appeal) (A156/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 415 (30 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A156/2023

Judges

M.M.D Lenyai, M.J Teffo, C.J Mc Aslin

The trial court materially misdirected itself by failing to consider and record substantial and compelling circumstances relevant to the appellant, including his status as a first offender and personal circumstances. The trial court also erred in imposing a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment for count 5 without justification, contrary to the prescribed minimum sentence for a first offender. The cumulative effect of the sentences was excessive and not in accordance with the law. The appellate court found that the sentences should be reduced and ordered to run concurrently, resulting in an effe…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Minimum Sentences
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Concurrent Sentences
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Criminal Law Amendment Act

Z.N.S v S (A20/2023)

Z.N.S v S (A20/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 195 (28 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A20/2023

Judges

N Gcawu-Dambuza, S Mfenyana

The appeal was limited to sentence, as the conviction was abandoned. The regional court imposed life imprisonment under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, relying on aggravating circumstances such as the victim's HIV infection and injuries. However, the state failed to prove that the appellant knew his HIV/AIDS status at the time of the offence or that grievous bodily harm was inflicted, both of which are jurisdictional facts required for the imposition of life imprisonment under section 51(1). The trial court misdirected itself by ignoring section 51(2), which prescribes a mini…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Jurisdiction Of Sentencing Court
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances

Jood and Another v S (Appeal) (A 22/2022)

Jood and Another v S (Appeal) (A 22/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 120 (4 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A22/2022

Judges

M J Teffo, M M Lenyai, CJ Mc Aslin

The High Court dismissed an appeal against murder convictions, holding that a known eyewitness reliably identified the appellants and that their alibi failed.

• Murder
• Identification Evidence
• Single Witness Rule
• Alibi
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Criminal Law Amendment Act

Visagie v S (CA&R23/23)

Visagie v S (CA&R23/23) [2025] ZANCHC 8 (31 January 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R23/23

Judges

Nxumalo, Williams

The court found that the trial court had properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's personal circumstances, the seriousness of the offences, the interests of society, and the degree of remorse shown. The appellant's youth, guilty plea, and claimed remorse did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment for rape. The offences were brutal, committed with threats and violence, and caused significant psychological harm to the victims. The prevalence of rape and the need for deterrenc…

Source excerpt

• Prescribed Minimum Sentence
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Rape
• Sentencing Discretion
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Criminal Law Amendment Act

Mboyena v S (CA 35/2020)

Mboyena v S (CA 35/2020) [2025] ZANWHC 16 (28 January 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 35/2020

Judges

Reid, Wessels

The High Court condoned a late criminal appeal but dismissed the appellant’s challenge to a 25-year rape sentence, finding no basis to interfere.

• Rape Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Minimum Sentences
• Appellate Review
• Mitigating Factors

Loyiso Ludidi and Others v S (983/2022; 056/2024)

Loyiso Ludidi and Others v S (983/2022; 056/2024) [2024] ZASCA 162; 2025 (1) SACR 225 (SCA) (29 November 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

983/2022; 056/2024

Judges

Nicholls, Hughes, Molefe, Dolamo, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that while the appellants spent a lengthy period of five years and eight months in custody awaiting trial, this fact alone does not constitute a substantial and compelling circumstance justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment. The delays in the proceedings were largely attributable to the appellants and their legal representatives, including unsuccessful bail applications and repeated non-attendance. The offences were heinous contract killings, and the appellants acted as hired assassins willing to kill for payment. The co…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Awaiting Trial Period
• Life Imprisonment
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Sentencing Discretion

K.C.N v S (A176/2023)

K.C.N v S (A176/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 306 (1 October 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A176/2023

Judges

NS Daniso, E Mahlangu

The High Court upheld a rape conviction based on the complainant’s evidence, but reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 15 years because grievous bodily harm was not proved.

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Grievous Bodily Harm
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Single Witness Evidence
• Appeal Principles

Mondzinger v S (Leave to Appeal) (K/S26/2022)

Mondzinger v S (Leave to Appeal) (K/S26/2022) [2024] ZANCHC 82 (16 August 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

K/S26/2022

Judge

MC Mamosebo

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the sentence of life imprisonment for murder. The grounds raised, including emotional stress, provocation, and time spent in custody, either constituted new evidence not presented at trial or did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances. The aggravating factors, including the murder of a pregnant woman and the context of gender-based violence, were properly considered in sentencing. The period of 10 months spent in custody awaiting trial was not sufficient to justify a devi…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Leave To Appeal
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Sentencing
• Gender Based Violence