South Africa Case Law

Peni v S (Appeal) (A280/2024)

Peni v S (Appeal) (A280/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 257 (20 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A280/2024

Judges

Nuku, Roux

The evidence led by the prosecution established that the deceased attacked the appellant first by stabbing him with a knife. The appellant's response in stabbing the deceased was consistent with self-defence, and there was no evidence that the attack had ceased or that the appellant exceeded the bounds of self-defence. The trial court failed to properly evaluate the evidence and erred in relying on the appellant's failure to testify as a basis for conviction. In the absence of evidence disproving self-defence, the prosecution did not discharge its burden of proof. The conviction and sentence…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Self Defence
• Burden Of Proof
• Failure To Testify

Yako v S (CA&R85/2022)

Yako v S (CA&R85/2022) [2024] ZAECMHC 69 (30 August 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CA&R85/2022

Judges

B Hartle, Z Z Matebese

The Eastern Cape High Court upheld an appeal against theft and fraud convictions, finding the State had not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

• Theft
• Fraud
• Burden Of Proof
• Failure To Testify
• Fiduciary Duties
• Criminal-law

Motsoane v S (A178/2022)

Motsoane v S (A178/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 360 (15 September 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A178/2022

Judges

Reinders, Thamae

The appellate court found that the Regional Magistrate correctly evaluated the circumstantial evidence, including the eyewitness account, forensic medical findings indicating forceful penetration, and DNA evidence linking the appellant to the complainant. The absence of testimony from the complainant and the appellant did not detract from the sufficiency of the State's evidence. Applying the principles in R v Blom and S v Reddy, the court held that the only reasonable inference from the evidence was that the appellant penetrated the complainant's genitals on the day in question. There was no…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Penetration
• Onus Of Proof
• Failure To Testify

Govender v S (221/2022)

Govender v S (221/2022) [2023] ZASCA 60; 2023 (2) SACR 137 (SCA) (3 May 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

221/2022

Judges

Schippers, Carelse, Nhlangulela, Siwendu, Unterhalter

Appeal dismissed: the court upheld murder convictions based on common purpose and confirmed the life sentences.

• Common Purpose
• Murder
• Firearms Control Act
• Mens Rea
• Minimum Sentencing
• Failure To Testify

Mabotja v S (A57/2022)

Mabotja v S (A57/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 482 (1 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A57/2022

Judges

Karam, Yacoob

The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, finding the complainant credible and corroborated.

• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Onus Of Proof
• Single Witness Evidence
• Section 174 Discharge
• Failure To Testify
• Assault-with-intent-to-do-grievous-bodily-harm

S v Neoth and Another (SS52/2020)

S v Neoth and Another (SS52/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 768 (29 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS52/2020

Judge

Africa

The High Court dismissed leave to appeal against a conviction for accessory after the fact to murder, finding no reasonable prospect of success.

• Accessory After The Fact
• Unlawfulness
• Burden Of Proof
• Reasonable Prospect Of Success
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Failure To Testify

Mshololo v S (A13/2022)

Mshololo v S (A13/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 690 (13 September 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A13/2022

Judges

MJ Mosopa, JS Nyathi

The court found that the complainant's evidence was credible, clear, and satisfactory in all material respects, and that the contradictions between her testimony and that of other State witnesses were minor and did not affect the reliability of her account. The appellant admitted to sexual intercourse but claimed it was consensual; however, the circumstances, including the complainant's injuries, her immediate report to a third party and the police, and the appellant's request for forgiveness, supported the absence of consent. The appellant's failure to testify or call witnesses in his defenc…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Single Witness Evidence
• Onus Of Proof
• Consent
• Failure To Testify

Nketle v S (A141 /2020)

Nketle v S (A141 /2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 276 (5 November 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A 141 /2020

Judges

Opperman, Page

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against a murder conviction, holding that the charge amendment was fair and the State proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

• Murder
• Credibility Of Single Witness
• Amendment Of Charge Sheet
• Onus Of Proof
• Failure To Testify
• Common Purpose

Mahabo v S (A88/2020)

Mahabo v S (A88/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 223 (21 September 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A88/2020

Judges

Daffue, Opperman

The court found that the evidence of the single witness was not reliable and did not establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstantial evidence was not properly applied, as it failed to exclude reasonable alternative inferences and did not point conclusively to the appellant as the perpetrator. The trial court misdirected itself by making a negative deduction from the appellant’s failure to testify, contrary to constitutional principles. The State’s failure to call other available witnesses further weakened its case. In light of these misdirections and the concession…

Source excerpt

• Single Witness
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Failure To Testify
• Burden Of Proof
• Admissibility Of Hearsay
• Constitutional Right To Silence

Mkhize and Others v S (390/18)

Mkhize and Others v S (390/18) [2019] ZASCA 56 (1 April 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

390/18

Judges

Majiedt, Swain, Mathopo

The court found that all appellants were present in the room during the interrogation and assault of the deceased, and their collective silence and failure to testify or dispute the State's version strengthened the prima facie case to one beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence conclusively established that the deceased died from severe blunt force trauma sustained during the interrogation, and alternative explanations were implausible. The appellants, as police officers, had a duty to prevent the assault and report the crime, and their omission constituted negligence. The requirements…

Source excerpt

• Culpable Homicide
• Common Purpose
• Duty To Prevent Crime
• Failure To Testify
• Cross Examination
• Sentencing Principles