South Africa Case Law

Moyo v S (A168/2017)

Moyo v S (A168/2017) [2025] ZAGPJHC 481 (20 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A168/2017

Judges

Strydom, P. G. Malindi, T.P. Bokako

The court found that the evidence of the police witnesses, particularly W/O Ramonyai, was not clear, satisfactory, or corroborated in all material respects. There were material discrepancies and improbabilities in their accounts regarding the arrest of the appellant and the discovery of the bank card. The failure of the State to call Captain Zulu, who was implicated by both accused and played a significant role in the arrest, justified an adverse inference against the State. The appellant's version was consistent and reasonably possibly true, and there was no reliable evidence or circumstance…

Source excerpt

• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Adverse Inference
• Burden Of Proof
• Failure To Call Witness
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances

Tshuma v S (A24/2023)

Tshuma v S (A24/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1282 (9 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A24/2023

Judges

Britz, Dosio

The High Court upheld an appeal against robbery and firearm convictions, finding the identification evidence unreliable and the physical evidence insufficient.

• Identification Evidence
• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Onus Of Proof
• Chain Of Custody
• Appeal Principles
• Identification-evidence

Bhima v S (CA&R 58/2022)

Bhima v S (CA&R 58/2022) [2023] ZANCHC 77 (27 October 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 58/2022

Judges

Nxumalo, Stanton

The appeal succeeded in part: robbery with aggravating circumstances was set aside, substituted with theft, and the sentence was reduced from 15 to 8 years.

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Admissibility Of Hearsay Evidence
• Theft
• Minimum Sentencing
• Evaluation Of Evidence

Marema v S (A317/2019)

Marema v S (A317/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1175 (13 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A317/2019

Judges

de Vos, D Makhoba

Appeal against a conviction for housebreaking and theft succeeded because the appellant’s explanation was reasonably possibly true and the State’s evidence was too contradictory.

• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Burden Of Proof
• Housebreaking And Theft
• Criminal-law

Mothobi v S (A25/2023)

Mothobi v S (A25/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 308 (8 August 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A25/2023

Judges

D.P. Mthimunye, N.S. Daniso

The High Court upheld an appeal against convictions for motor-vehicle theft and possession of suspected stolen property, setting both convictions aside.

• Theft Of Motor Vehicle
• Possession Of Suspected Stolen Property
• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Identification Evidence
• Alibi Defence
• Criminal-law

Kbelo and Another v S (A200/2018)

Kbelo and Another v S (A200/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 558 (25 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A200/2018

Judges

Bhoola, Ramlal

Appeal partly succeeded: robbery convictions were set aside, one appellant was convicted of possession of suspected stolen property, and the other was acquitted.

• Circumstantial Evidence
• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Identification Evidence
• Contradictions In Testimony
• Minimum Sentence Act
• Joint Possession

Guliwe v S (A124/2022)

Guliwe v S (A124/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 462 (11 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A124/2022

Judges

Ismail, Mnqibisa-Thusi, Mokgoathleng

The court found that the appellant's explanation for possession of the deceased's vehicle was inconsistent and not reasonably possibly true. The doctrine of recent possession was correctly applied, as the vehicle was found with the appellant within twenty-four hours of the crime, and his version changed multiple times. The trial court's assessment of the evidence was sound, and the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Regarding sentence, the court held that the brutal nature of the murder and robbery outweighed the appellant's personal circumstances, and no substantial and com…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Minimum Sentencing
• Doctrine Of Recent Possession

Peter and Another v S (CA&R 175/2021)

Peter and Another v S (CA&R 175/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 97 (15 November 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA&R 175/2021

Judges

Rugunanan, Griffiths

The Eastern Cape High Court upheld an appeal against robbery convictions, finding the identification evidence unreliable and the recent-possession argument unproved.

• Identification Evidence
• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Alibi Defence
• Section 204 Accomplice
• Criminal Procedure Irregularity

S v Myeni and Another (CC01/2020)

S v Myeni and Another (CC01/2020) [2021] ZAMPMHC 18 (28 June 2021)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

CC01/2020

Judge

Ratshibvumo

The court convicted both accused of murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances, relying on circumstantial evidence and recent possession, but acquitted them on firearm and ammunition charges.

• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Common Purpose
• Possession Of Unlicensed Firearm
• Robbery-with-aggravating-circumstances

Ramaloko and Others v S (A60/2019)

Ramaloko and Others v S (A60/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 87 (3 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A60/2019

Judges

Mosopa, Mabunda

The High Court dismissed most of the appellants’ criminal appeal, upheld the admission of warning statements, and corrected only the unlawful Immigration Act sentence.

• Admissibility Of Warning Statements
• Minimum Sentencing
• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Right To Silence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Admissibility-of-warning-statements