South Africa Case Law

S v T.E.M

S v T.E.M [2024] ZANWHC 232 (3 October 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 35/2023

Judges

N G Laubscher, A B Scarrott

The appeal court found that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of premeditated murder and imposing life imprisonment. The only evidence before the trial court was the appellant's section 112(2) statement, which did not establish planning or premeditation. The murder was committed in a fit of rage following an argument, not as a result of prior rational planning or a scheme. Therefore, the minimum sentence for premeditated murder under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act was not applicable. The trial court also exceeded its sentencing jurisdiction by imposing life im…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Premeditated Murder
• Sentencing Jurisdiction
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Firearm Disqualification

S v Mokgola (SS31/2023)

S v Mokgola (SS31/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 976 (19 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS31/2023

Judge

Noko

After conviction for murder and child abuse, the High Court imposed life imprisonment, five years’ imprisonment, and declared the accused unfit to possess a firearm.

• Minimum Sentencing Regime
• Murder
• Child Abuse
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Remorse
• Firearm Disqualification

Lesetedi v S (CA 24/2023)

Lesetedi v S (CA 24/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 240 (18 September 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 24/2023

Judges

A B Scarrott, N Laubscher

High Court criminal appeal dismissed. The court upheld a 15-year minimum sentence for murder, finding no substantial and compelling reasons to reduce it.

• Minimum Sentencing Legislation
• Murder
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Appeal On Sentence
• Firearm Disqualification
• Appeal-on-sentence

S v Malothe (Sentence) (KS/12A/2024)

S v Malothe (Sentence) (KS/12A/2024) [2024] ZANCHC 80 (28 August 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

KS/12A/2024

Judge

O.K. Chwaro

The accused was convicted of murder in a domestic relationship, which falls under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, read with the Domestic Violence Act. The evidence, including witness testimony, confession, and plea explanation, established that the accused intentionally killed the deceased, his romantic partner, by stabbing her multiple times. The court considered the accused's personal circumstances, previous convictions, and the interests of society, including the impact on the victim's family. The accused's actions were found to be serious and brutal, and his personal circ…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentences
• Domestic Violence
• Murder
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Sentencing Principles
• Firearm Disqualification

S v Madinga - Sentence (30/2022)

S v Madinga - Sentence (30/2022) [2023] ZAECELLC 24 (15 September 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

30/2022

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that the offences committed by Mr Madinga were extremely serious, involving multiple rapes over an extended period, use of weapons, threats, and victims who were young and vulnerable. The prescribed minimum sentences for rape, including life imprisonment, were applicable under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The accused's personal circumstances, including his status as a first offender, youthfulness, and family responsibilities, were considered but found to be ordinary mitigating factors rather than substantial and compelling circumstances. The court rejected arguments that de…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Housebreaking With Intent To Rape
• Common Purpose
• Child Protection
• Firearm Disqualification

Tsiba v S (CA 44/2022)

Tsiba v S (CA 44/2022) [2023] ZANWHC 27 (15 March 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 44/2022

Judges

Petersen, Maakane

The court found that the charge sheet, while not explicitly referencing 'Part I of Schedule 2,' made clear reference to section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and specified the complainant's age, thereby establishing the jurisdictional fact required for the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment. The technical ground of appeal was dismissed. The trial court's brevity in sentencing and failure to properly consider the impact on the victim constituted a material misdirection, entitling the appellate court to reconsider sentence afresh. Upon review, the court found no substant…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentences
• Rape Of Minor
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Sentencing Discretion
• Firearm Disqualification
• Sex Offender Registration

S v Ntombana (54/2022)

S v Ntombana (54/2022) [2022] ZAECELLC 37 (1 December 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

54/2022

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that the accused committed multiple rapes and attempted rapes against vulnerable victims, including minors, using threats and violence. The psycho-social reports demonstrated profound and lasting harm to the victims and their families. The accused’s personal circumstances, including his youth, lack of prior convictions, and time spent in custody, were considered but found to be outweighed by the seriousness, premeditation, and repeated nature of the offences. The court held that there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify a lesser sentence than life impri…

Source excerpt

• Rape Of Minors
• Minimum Sentencing
• Sexual Offences Register
• Child Protection Register
• Firearm Disqualification

S v Bhuda (CC46/2021)

S v Bhuda (CC46/2021) [2022] ZAMPMHC 14 (13 October 2022)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

CC46/2021

Judge

M T Mankge

The High Court imposed life imprisonment for murder and each rape count, plus 15 years for robbery, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Murder
• Rape
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Firearm Disqualification

S v Norman (06/2022)

S v Norman (06/2022) [2022] ZAECGHC 21 (11 March 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

06/2022

Judge

A. Govindjee

The court found that Mr Norman, a youthful first offender, assaulted the deceased twice within 24 hours, resulting in her death. Despite his remorse, guilty plea, and difficult personal circumstances, the aggravating factors—repeated violence, the vulnerability of the victim, and the nature of the offence—outweighed the mitigating factors. The court held that these circumstances were not substantial and compelling enough to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence for murder. The prescribed minimum sentence was deemed proportionate to the crime, the offender, and the interests o…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentences Act
• Dolus Eventualis
• Gender Based Violence
• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Concurrent Sentences
• Firearm Disqualification

S v Zitha (CC38/2021)

S v Zitha (CC38/2021) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 54 (24 February 2022)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

CC38/2021

Judge

Greyling-Coetzer

The accused pleaded guilty to premeditated murder and was convicted on the strength of his plea and Section 112(2) statement. The court found that the murder was brutal, involving multiple weapons and extreme violence. The accused's personal circumstances, including his age, family responsibilities, and prior convictions, were considered but found not to be sufficiently substantial or compelling to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. The court rejected the defense's reliance on S v Pillay, holding that the issue of premeditation cannot be revisited at sentencing once convi…

Source excerpt

• Premeditated Murder
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Sentencing Principles
• Crime Of Passion
• Domestic Violence
• Firearm Disqualification