South Africa Case Law

Konjo v S (CA 31/2023)

Konjo v S (CA 31/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 238 (16 September 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 31/2023

Judges

Scarrott, Laubscher

The section 112 statement admitted the essential elements of murder, specifically unlawful and intentional killing with direct intent (dolus directus), but did not address or admit planning or premeditation. The trial court erred by convicting the appellant of planned or premeditated murder and applying the minimum sentencing provisions under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The facts did not exclude the reasonable inference that the murder was committed in a fit of rage rather than as a result of planning or premeditation. Consequently, the conviction and sentence must be sub…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Dolus Directus
• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Section 112 Statement

Gysman v S (A17/24)

Gysman v S (A17/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 227 (28 August 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A147/24

Judges

Slingers, Montzinger

The appeal court found that the trial court was justified in accepting the evidence of the single eyewitness and rejecting the appellant's improbable version. The cumulative circumstances—the nature and duration of the assault, the use of a knife, the position of the deceased and her mother, and the location of the wound—supported the inference that the appellant had the requisite intent to kill. Even if the trial court had erred in finding dolus directus, the evidence overwhelmingly supported a conviction on the basis of dolus eventualis. The appellant's actions demonstrated clear foresight…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Intent
• Single Witness Evidence
• Dolus Directus
• Dolus Eventualis
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 208

S v Mabunda (CC15/2021)

S v Mabunda (CC15/2021) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 50 (24 June 2022)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

CC15/2021

Judge

C I Moosa

The High Court convicted the accused of murdering his wife and held that the killing was planned and premeditated, bringing section 51(1) into play.

• Murder
• Premeditation
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Dolus Directus
• Minimum-sentences-act

Smous v S (CA&R29/14)

Smous v S (CA&R29/14) [2017] ZANCHC 56; 2018 (1) SACR 108 (NCK) (15 September 2017)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 29/14

Judges

Tlaletsi, Williams, Ndlokovane

Sentence appeal in a murder case. The High Court set aside life imprisonment, found no substantial and compelling reasons for less than the minimum, and imposed 18 years.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Murder
• Dolus Directus
• Mitigating And Aggravating Factors
• Sentence Appeal
• Minimum-sentencing

Taunyane v S (A140/2015)

Taunyane v S (A140/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 308; 2018 (1) SACR 163 (GJ) (28 September 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A140/2015

Judges

Satchwell, Van Oosten, Masipa

The appeal court found that the trial court misdirected itself by making a finding of premeditation only at the sentencing stage, rather than at conviction. The evidence did not exclude all reasonable inferences other than premeditation, and thus the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was planned or premeditated. The conviction for premeditated murder was set aside and substituted with a conviction for murder with dolus directus. No substantial and compelling circumstances were found to justify deviation from the minimum sentence prescribed by law. However, the cour…

Source excerpt

• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Dolus Directus
• Burden Of Proof
• Appeal Procedure

S v Matjeke (049/2016)

S v Matjeke (049/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 130 (3 June 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

049/2016

Judge

T.V. Ratshibvumo

The court convicted the accused of premeditated murder and robbery after he drove back to avenge a shooting, but acquitted him on driving charges.

• Premeditated Murder
• Mistaken Identity
• Dolus Directus
• Driving Under Influence
• Reckless Driving
• Duplication Of Charges

Ludada v S (A258/2014)

Ludada v S (A258/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 242 (3 December 2015)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A258/2014

Judges

Molelma JP, Moloi J, Mohale AJ

The Full Bench dismissed an appeal against life imprisonment for murder, holding there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to depart from the prescribed sentence.

• Minimum Sentencing Act
• Life Imprisonment
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Dolus Directus
• Sentencing Discretion
• Minimum-sentencing

S v Nyathi (K/S 58/08)

S v Nyathi (K/S 58/08) [2009] ZANCHC 1 (3 February 2009)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

K/S 58/08

Judge

Tlaletsi

The court found that the objective facts established by the evidence, particularly the testimony of Ms Modise, demonstrated that the accused acted with direct intent to kill. The accused chased the deceased, threw her down, and stabbed her twelve times with a sharp knife, targeting sensitive areas of the body, while stating he could go to jail. The deceased posed no threat, and the accused's actions were deliberate and sustained. The court rejected the accused's version regarding the presence of another man, finding no evidence to support it. The accused's emotional state and jealousy did not…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Dolus Directus
• Intention
• Plea Explanation
• Onus Of Proof

S v Louw (CA&R 113/07)

S v Louw (CA&R 113/07) [2008] ZANCHC 2 (8 February 2008)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 113/07

Judges

Bosielo, Williams

The High Court upheld an appeal against sentence for murder, finding substantial and compelling circumstances and reducing an 18-year term to 15 years.

• Sentencing Principles
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Minimum Sentences
• Provocation
• Intoxication
• Dolus Directus

s v Mouers (K/S 3/04)

s v Mouers (K/S 3/04) [2004] ZANCHC 105 (11 June 2004)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

K/S 3/04

Judge

P L Goliath

The court found that the accused's version of events was improbable and contradicted by both eyewitness and medical evidence. The medical expert testified that the nature and direction of the wound were consistent with a deliberate stabbing rather than an accidental fall. The accused's conduct after the incident, including his evasive answers and failure to seek help, further undermined his credibility. The State witnesses were found to be reliable and their testimonies corroborated each other. The court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused intentionally stabbed t…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Dolus Directus
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Medical Evidence
• Provocation