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
Masipa v S (Appeal) (A208/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 602 (4 June 2025)
The High Court upheld the appeal, set aside the murder conviction and sentence, and held that common purpose and dolus eventualis were not proved.
S v Prinsloo (CC10/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 275 (17 March 2025)
The court found that the accused acted with premeditation in the murders of his wife and stepdaughter. The evidence established that the accused expressed his intent to kill the victims prior to the incident, retrieved a loaded firearm from another room, and deliberately targeted both victims in accordance with his earlier threats. The accused's actions were systematic and aligned with his stated intentions, negating any claim of spontaneous provocation or loss of control. The court rejected the defense's version as lacking credibility, noting that the accused's conduct—pursuing his wife afte…
Source excerpt
S v Mandoza (A104/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1228 (27 November 2024)
The appeal court found that the identification evidence of the appellant by the two state witnesses was credible and reliable, as both witnesses knew the appellant personally and observed him at the scene. The appellant's alibi was rejected as contrived and not reasonably possibly true, given the contradictions and lack of candour from his supporting witnesses. The court held that the doctrine of common purpose was correctly applied, as the appellant acted as a lookout and was present during the commission of the offences, thereby associating himself with the criminal enterprise. The prosecut…
Source excerpt
Potgieter v S (A46/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1148 (7 November 2024)
The court found that the appellant was incorrectly charged with a single count of fraud, as the evidence related to seven separate incidents, none of which individually exceeded R100,000. Therefore, the minimum sentencing provisions of Act 105 of 1997 were not applicable. The evidence did not establish that the appellant personally completed or authorised the duplicated collection requests, nor did it prove that he had the requisite intent to defraud or steal. The duplications were the result of administrative inefficiencies and delays in documentation, and payments were made when duplication…
Source excerpt
Wildschut v S (CA & R98/2022) [2024] ZAECMKHC 34 (20 March 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against a murder conviction, holding that circumstantial evidence and the injuries sustained proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Lamola v S (A137/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 668 (8 June 2023)
The High Court partially upheld an appeal, setting aside a murder conviction and substituting culpable homicide, with a reduced sentence of seven years.
S v Malindi and Another (SS118/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 311 (11 April 2023)
The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the State was insufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The timeline of events was unclear due to the influence of alcohol and conflicting witness accounts. The presence of the deceased's cell phone and DNA on the hoodie could be explained by innocent circumstances, such as sharing clothing and the deceased's efforts to conceal her phone from family. The lack of direct evidence, photographs, or clear forensic links meant that the inference of guilt was not the only reasonable one available. As a result, t…
Source excerpt
S v Moyo (SS25/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 56 (4 February 2022)
The High Court convicted Samson Moyo of murder and attempted murder, finding he actively associated himself with the attack on an elderly couple under common purpose.
Tiyane v S (A10/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 86 (3 December 2021)
The court found that the appellant's defence of self-defence was not supported by the evidence. The appellant denied stabbing the deceased and claimed he was not present when the fatal injuries were inflicted. However, multiple witnesses placed the appellant at the scene and identified him as the person who stabbed the deceased with a broken bottle. The court held that the attack on the appellant had ceased by the time he armed himself and that there was no imminent danger justifying the use of force. The requirements for private defence were not met, as the appellant was not under attack whe…
Source excerpt
Jenkins v S (A54/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 856 (23 November 2021)
The High Court set aside Basil Victor Jenkins’ conviction and sentence, holding that he should have been referred for psychiatric evaluation under section 78(2).
Explore more
