South Africa Case Law

J.P v S (Appeal) (A57/2023)

J.P v S (Appeal) (A57/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 247 (11 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A57/2023

Judges

Sipunzi, Le Grange

The court found that the trial court did not err in its factual findings or application of legal principles. The medical evidence established that the deceased's injuries were inflicted inside the home and were not consistent with accidental causes or a prior motor vehicle collision. Witness testimony corroborated that a violent altercation occurred between the appellant and the deceased, and the appellant's version was riddled with contradictions and improbabilities. The trial court correctly concluded that the appellant was criminally responsible for the injuries and death of the deceased.…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Desecration Of Corpse
• Criminal Procedure
• Domestic Violence
• Sentencing Principles

Netshishive v S (A48/2023)

Netshishive v S (A48/2023) [2025] ZAGPJHC 515 (27 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A48/2023

Judges

Malindi, Mia

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against convictions for kidnapping, rape and breaching a protection order, finding no misdirection in the trial court.

• Rape
• Kidnapping
• Contravention Of Protection Order
• Domestic Violence Act
• Criminal Procedure
• Fair Trial Rights

Godfrey Alfred Ntuli v S (20730/2014)

Godfrey Alfred Ntuli v S (20730/2014) [2025] ZASCA 53; 2025 (2) SACR 157 (SCA) (9 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20730/2014

Judges

Hughes, Baartman, Coppin, Musi, Bloem

The Supreme Court of Appeal considered whether the state had proved the complainant's age beyond reasonable doubt, as required for a conviction under s 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The majority held that the admission of hearsay evidence regarding the complainant's age was justified in the interests of justice, given the appellant's acquiescence and the absence of prejudice to his fair trial rights. The appellant was aware of the minimum sentence regime and directed his defence accordingly. The reference to s 51(2) in the charge sheet did not prejudice the appellant, as he was not…

Source excerpt

• Hearsay Evidence
• Minimum Sentencing
• Rape Of Minor
• Fair Trial Rights
• Charge Sheet Error
• Criminal Procedure

Bonge v S (A106/2024)

Bonge v S (A106/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 90 (6 March 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A106/2024

Judges

Mhlambi, S. Grobler

The court found that the Magistrate erred by applying a test of mere probability rather than the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainant's version, her conduct after the alleged incidents, and the lack of corroboration from witnesses and medical evidence rendered the State's case insufficient. The complainant did not report rape to witnesses, and her actions were inconsistent with those of a person who had been raped. The court held that the State failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction coul…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Burden Of Proof
• Reasonable Doubt
• Contradictory Evidence
• Sexual Offences Act
• Criminal Procedure

S v J.J.L (KS19/24)

S v J.J.L (KS19/24) [2025] ZANCHC 33 (28 January 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

KS19/24

Judge

Van Tonder

The Northern Cape High Court convicted the accused of murder and multiple assaults, rejecting self-defence claims and finding the State proved premeditated murder on Count 8.

• Murder
• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Self Defence
• Dolus Eventualis
• Premeditation
• Criminal Procedure

Koka v S (A35/2022)

Koka v S (A35/2022) [2024] ZALMPPHC 111 (17 September 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

A35/2022

Judges

Kganyago, Morgan

The conviction of the appellant was unsustainable due to several material irregularities. The DNA evidence excluded the appellant as the source of semen found on the complainant, and the prosecution failed to link any of the forensic analyst's scenarios to the appellant. The complainant's identification of the appellant in court was procedurally flawed, amounting to dock identification without proper foundation and with undue prompting by the prosecution. The trial was expedited without awaiting vital DNA results, prejudicing the appellant's right to a fair trial. The evidence of penetration…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Single Witness Evidence
• Dock Identification
• Dna Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Criminal Procedure

Seroba v S (SS308/2007)

Seroba v S (SS308/2007) [2024] ZAGPJHC 421 (29 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS308/2007

Judge

Dosio

The High Court dismissed leave to appeal against murder convictions and 27-year sentences, finding no reasonable prospects of success.

• Leave To Appeal
• Murder
• Criminal Incapacity
• Sentencing Principles
• Superior Courts Act
• Criminal Procedure

Mkhwanazi and Another v S (Appeal) (AR504/2018)

Mkhwanazi and Another v S (Appeal) (AR504/2018) [2023] ZAKZPHC 162 (22 September 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR504/2018

Judges

Henriques, Seegobin

Appeal court upheld self-defence arguments, set aside murder, attempted murder and assault convictions, and found the trial court misdirected itself on the evidence.

• Private Defence
• Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Common Assault
• Criminal Procedure
• Appellate Review

Takwanda v S (A142/2022)

Takwanda v S (A142/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 644 (5 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A142/2022

Judges

Johnson, Ismail

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal after finding the appellant was in recent possession of stolen vehicles and gave no satisfactory innocent explanation.

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Recent Possession Doctrine
• Assessment Of Evidence
• Innocent Explanation
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal-law

Lekwane v S (CA34/2022)

Lekwane v S (CA34/2022) [2022] ZANWHC 61 (10 November 2022)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA34/2022

Judges

A Reddy, RD Hendricks

The court found that the appellant provided a reasonable and detailed explanation for the delay in lodging the appeal, warranting the granting of condonation. However, upon considering the appellant's personal circumstances, the court held that these did not amount to substantial and compelling reasons justifying a departure from the prescribed sentence of life imprisonment for rape committed more than once. The sentencing discretion of the trial court was properly exercised, and there was no material misdirection or disproportionate sentence that would justify interference. The appeal agains…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Discretion
• Minimum Sentences
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Rape
• Condonation
• Criminal Procedure