South Africa Case Law

S v Ayuk and Others (Sentence) (CC46/2019)

S v Ayuk and Others (Sentence) (CC46/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 395 (15 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC46/2019

Judge

A De Wet

The court found that accused 1 was the principal operator of a human trafficking enterprise, luring vulnerable victims under false pretenses, subjecting them to captivity, drug addiction, and severe physical and psychological abuse. The offences were aggravated by the involvement of children and the lasting impact on victims. No substantial and compelling circumstances were found for accused 1 to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentences; his sentences were ordered to run concurrently to recognize time spent awaiting trial. For accused 2, the court found substantial and compelling circums…

Source excerpt

• Human Trafficking
• Sentencing Minimums
• Best Interests Of Children
• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Drug Dealing
• Living Off Earnings Of Prostitution

S v Solomon and Others (CC23/2018)

S v Solomon and Others (CC23/2018) [2020] ZAWCHC 118; 2021 (1) SACR 533 (WCC) (12 October 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC23/2018

Judge

O L Rogers

Sentencing judgment imposing life and long-term sentences for murder, attempted murder, drug dealing, and gang-related offences.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Criminal Gang Activity
• Drug Dealing
• Firearm Possession
• Attempted Murder
• Murder

Solomons v S (CC23/2018)

Solomons v S (CC23/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 38; [2019] 2 All SA 833 (WCC) (29 March 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC23/2018

Judge

De Waal

High Court bail application refused for an accused facing Schedule 6 murder, gang and drug charges. The court found no exceptional circumstances and no weak State case.

• Bail Application
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Criminal Gang Activity
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Murder
• Drug Dealing

National Director of Public Presecutions v Bailey (19611/2013)

National Director of Public Presecutions v Bailey (19611/2013) [2015] ZAWCHC 155 (21 October 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19611/2013

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the respondent's property was an instrumentality of drug dealing as required by POCA. While multiple police raids revealed the presence of drugs and cash, there was no evidence of a sustained course of dealing or that the property was adapted or used functionally as a drug shop. The allegations regarding 'runners' and the use of the property for drug sales were unsupported by factual evidence. The supplementary affidavit containing further allegations was not properly served and its referenced material…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Forfeiture Of Property
• Instrumentality Of Offence
• Drug Dealing
• Burden Of Proof

Umeh v S (A106/14)

Umeh v S (A106/14) [2015] ZAWCHC 81; 2015 (2) SACR 395 (WCC) (4 June 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A106/14

Judges

Henney, Baartman

Appeal against drug convictions dismissed, but minimum sentences were set aside for lack of proof of drug value; sentences were replaced with 7 and 15 years concurrent.

• Search And Seizure
• Drug Dealing
• Minimum Sentencing
• Duplication Of Charges
• Consent To Search
• Admissibility Of Evidence

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Komane and Others (6867/08)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Komane and Others (6867/08) [2013] ZAKZPHC 73 (28 August 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

6867/08

Judge

Seegobin

The court granted a POCA forfeiture order over properties and a vehicle, finding they were bought with proceeds of drug dealing and rejecting the respondents’ explanations.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Asset Forfeiture
• Proceeds Of Unlawful Activities
• Burden Of Proof
• Drug Dealing
• Money Laundering

Khan v S (AR 55/10)

Khan v S (AR 55/10) [2010] ZAKZPHC 33; 2010 (2) SACR 476 (KZP) (7 July 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 55/10

Judges

K Swain, I Madondo

The court found that the appellant was a suspect at the time the police approached her and that the Judges' Rules required the police to caution her, but not to advise her of constitutional rights under Section 35. The evidence established that the appellant was involved in the running of the tuck shop and was aware of the drugs hidden under the floorboards. Even if the evidence of her production of the drugs was excluded, the remaining evidence proved her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The admission of the production evidence did not render the trial unfair or bring the administration of jus…

Source excerpt

• Drug Possession
• Drug Dealing
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Constitutional Rights
• Judges Rules

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Stemmet and Another (13008/2007)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Stemmet and Another (13008/2007) [2009] ZAWCHC 86 (30 April 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13008/2007

Judge

N J Yekiso

The High Court ordered forfeiture of R70,508.55 found with drugs at a Muizenberg property, finding the cash was connected to drug dealing.

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Drug Dealing
• Forfeiture Of Property
• Innocent Owner Defence
• Poca-forfeiture
• Drug-dealing

Afrikaner v S (A572/08)

Afrikaner v S (A572/08) [2009] ZAWCHC 129 (7 March 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A572/08

Judges

Thring, Van der Merwe

The Western Cape High Court held there was no improper splitting of charges, but found the magistrate's 36-month sentence for dagga dealing and possession excessive.

• Drug Possession
• Drug Dealing
• Sentence Appeal
• Splitting Of Charges
• Criminal-law
• Drug-dealing

S v Hammond (320/07)

S v Hammond (320/07) [2007] ZASCA 164; [2007] SCA 164 (RSA); [2008] 2 All SA 226 (SCA); 2008 (1) SACR 476 (SCA) (29 November 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

320/07

Judges

Mthiyane, Lewis, Jafta

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that trap evidence in a drug-dealing case was admissible, dismissed the conviction appeal, and reduced the sentence.

• Drug Dealing
• Entrapment
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Sentencing Principles