Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
S v Nthama (HC 12 /2023) [2023] ZANWHC 202 (1 November 2023)
The High Court reviewed and set aside a housebreaking conviction after finding the accused’s guilty-plea statement did not admit all elements of the offence.
S v Mudau (SS93/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1088 (3 March 2023)
The High Court convicted Mulalo Lucky Mudau after finding that all elements of the offence had been admitted, leaving no factual dispute on guilt.
Ndlela and Others v S (SH187/2018; AR252/2019) [2020] ZAKZPHC 27 (16 June 2020)
The court held that the facts admitted by the appellants in their s 112(2) statements established all elements of public violence: unlawful assembly, common intent, and conduct of serious dimensions that invaded the rights of others and disturbed public peace. The absence of physical violence does not preclude conviction where force or invasion of rights is present. The court found that the trial court's reliance solely on the statements was proper under s 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Regarding sentence, the court determined that the sentences imposed were disproportionate given the…
Source excerpt
S v Motlokwa (R11/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 15 (6 February 2020)
High Court review confirming a conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft, holding that the accused’s section 112(2) statement admitted the essential elements.
Mazibuko v S (R152/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 194 (19 September 2019)
The court set aside a conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and theft, substituting theft only, and held that no firearm-unfitness order could stand.
Sebaka v S (A82/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 196 (22 May 2019)
The court found that the appellant's admission was sufficient to satisfy the elements required for conviction under section 36 of the General Law Amendment Act. The appellant admitted knowing the goods were stolen and could not provide a satisfactory explanation for their possession. The inclusion of the statement regarding reasonable suspicion did not render the plea defective, as the appellant's own admissions established the necessary elements. The conviction was therefore upheld.
Source excerpt
Rupiya v S (03/2017) [2017] ZANWHC 85 (15 December 2017)
High Court review set aside guilty-plea convictions because the section 112(1)(b) inquiry was too leading and did not secure clear admissions of all offence elements.
S v Mathiba (280/14, A389/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 318 (3 June 2014)
High Court review of a theft conviction: the accused’s statement did not admit all elements of theft, so the conviction and sentence were set aside.
S v Mmako (515/10) [2011] ZAECGHC 73 (30 November 2011)
The High Court set aside all convictions because the magistrate’s section 112(1)(b) questioning was inadequate and did not properly cover each offence.
S v Tshabalala (278/2011) [2011] ZAFSHC 150 (1 September 2011)
A special review set aside a conviction under section 36 because the accused’s guilty plea did not cover all offence elements and the State proved none missing.
Explore more
