South Africa Case Law

Samotse and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (60113/2014)

Samotse and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (60113/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1001 (23 December 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

60113/2014

Judge

E Bertelsmann

The court found that the deportation of the first applicant to Botswana, where he faced the death penalty, was both unlawful and unconstitutional. This was because the officials of the Department of Home Affairs acted in direct contravention of an order of non-surrender issued by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and an interdict from the court. The conduct infringed the first applicant's constitutional rights to dignity, life, and protection from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the issues were hypothetical, noting repea…

Source excerpt

• Extradition
• Death Penalty
• Fundamental Rights
• Standing Operating Procedures
• Condonation
• Unlawful Deportation

Chanthunya v S (4/2013)

Chanthunya v S (4/2013) [2013] ZANWHC 45 (30 May 2013)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

4/2013

Judges

Kgoele, Gutta

The court held that the magistrate, in an extradition inquiry under section 10 of the Extradition Act, is not empowered to determine the sufficiency of the assurance provided by the requesting state regarding the death penalty. The magistrate's role is limited to determining whether the person is liable to be surrendered and whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution in the foreign state. The sufficiency of the assurance is a constitutional issue that must be decided by the Minister in terms of section 11 of the Act. Although the magistrate misdirected himself by assessing th…

Source excerpt

• Extradition
• Death Penalty
• Right To Life
• Ministerial Discretion
• Sufficiency Of Assurance

S v Mphatle en 'n Ander (40/93)

S v Mphatle en 'n Ander (40/93) [1998] ZASCA 4 (6 March 1998)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

40/93

Judges

Van Heerden, Olivier, Streicher

Appeal over murder and robbery convictions dismissed; death sentences set aside and matter remitted for resentencing after constitutional change.

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Voluntariness Of Statements
• Identification Evidence
• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Death Penalty

S v Jasmin and Another (89/92, 87/92, 83/92)

S v Jasmin and Another (89/92, 87/92, 83/92) [1998] ZASCA 3 (5 March 1998)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

89/92, 87/92, 83/92

Judges

Eksteen, Howie, Scott

The court upheld convictions for murder, robbery and theft, but set aside death sentences after Makwanyane and remitted sentencing.

• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Theft
• Admissibility Of Accomplice Evidence
• Death Penalty
• Firearm Possession

S v Kwepile (33/93)

S v Kwepile (33/93) [1997] ZASCA 113 (1 December 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

33/93

Judges

Olivier, F H Grosskopf, Van Coller

After a thorough review of the trial record and the conduct of the trial judge, the Supreme Court of Appeal found that, although the judge displayed impatience and intervened excessively in the examination of witnesses, these actions did not amount to a material irregularity or prejudice the appellant's right to a fair trial. The appellant's confession was properly admitted, as there was no credible evidence of assault or coercion, and the confession was corroborated by objective facts. The alibi defence was correctly rejected, as it was inconsistent with the confession and unsupported by cre…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Confession
• Judicial Impartiality
• Fair Trial Rights
• Alibi Defence
• Sentencing
• Death Penalty

S v Sikhakame en Andere (513/94, 724/94, 585/94)

S v Sikhakame en Andere (513/94, 724/94, 585/94) [1997] ZASCA 99 (21 November 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

513/94, 724/94, 585/94

Judges

Marais, Olivier, Van Coller

The appeal court upheld murder convictions, rejected challenges to confessions and pointing-outs, and set aside the death sentences after Makwanyane.

• Admissibility Of Confessions
• Alibi Defence
• Voluntariness Of Statements
• Death Penalty
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Criminal-law

S v Ntsangana (288/95)

S v Ntsangana (288/95) [1997] ZASCA 91 (11 November 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

288/95

Judges

Vivier, Marais, Zulman

The Supreme Court of Appeal found no reason to interfere with the trial court's acceptance of the evidence of accused No 1's wife, which was corroborated by other witnesses and physical evidence. The appellant's alibi was rejected as untruthful and improbable. The court held that the conviction for murder was correct based on the evidence. However, the death sentence imposed on accused No 2 must be set aside in consequence of the Constitutional Court's decision in S v Makwanyane, which declared the death penalty unconstitutional. The matter is remitted to the trial court for the imposition of…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Death Penalty
• Alibi Defence
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Constitutional Right To Life

S v Masela (239/94)

S v Masela (239/94) [1997] ZASCA 90 (6 November 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

239/94

Judges

Van Heerden, Nienaber, Howie

The conviction for murder is unassailable and stands. However, the death sentence, imposed before the Constitution, must be set aside in light of the Constitutional Court's decision in S v Makwanyane, which declared the death penalty unconstitutional. The proper course is to remit the matter to the trial court for imposition of a fresh and competent sentence on the murder count.

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Death Penalty
• Constitutional Rights
• Remittal For Sentence

S v Hadebe and Others (298/94)

S v Hadebe and Others (298/94) [1997] ZASCA 86 (29 September 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

298/94

Judges

R M Marais, Vivier, Streicher

The Supreme Court of Appeal found no material misdirection by the trial court and held that the circumstantial evidence against the appellants was overwhelming. The ballistic evidence conclusively linked the firearms found in the appellants' possession to the shootings. The defence's version was improbable and unsupported by credible evidence. The trial court properly evaluated the evidence and exercised caution where necessary. The convictions for murder, attempted murder, and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition were justified. However, following the Constitutional Court's decisio…

Source excerpt

• Common Purpose
• Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearms
• Arms And Ammunition Act
• Death Penalty

S v Masango en Andere (499/93, 510/93)

S v Masango en Andere (499/93, 510/93) [1997] ZASCA 40 (12 May 1997)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

499/93, 510/93

Judges

F H Grosskopf, LTC Harms, D G Scott

The court found that the evidence established that all appellants participated in the housebreaking and robbery, and that the circumstances were such that each foresaw the possibility of violence and death occurring during the commission of the robbery. The manner in which the crime was committed, including the cutting of telephone wires and binding of the deceased, indicated a premeditated plan to prevent resistance and call for help. The court held that the appellants acted with dolus eventualis and were correctly convicted of murder. However, following the Constitutional Court's decision i…

Source excerpt

• Dolus Eventualis
• Murder
• Housebreaking
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Death Penalty
• Constitutional Invalidity Of Death Sentence