South Africa Case Law

Gillespie v Chairperson: Firearms Appeal Board and Another (26396/22)

Gillespie v Chairperson: Firearms Appeal Board and Another (26396/22) [2025] ZAGPPHC 730 (28 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

26396/22

Judge

N V Khumalo

The court found that the applicant, as a non-citizen, was not entitled to repeated or indefinite temporary authorisations for firearm possession under section 21 of the Firearms Control Act. The applicant's pattern of continuous applications distorted the temporary nature intended by the statute, amounting to an attempt to obtain a permanent licence for which he did not qualify. The Registrar's refusal was justified by the lack of a genuine temporary need and inadequate motivation, as required by the regulations. The Appeal Board's decision was reasonable and based on the facts presented, inc…

Source excerpt

• Firearms Control Act
• Temporary Authorisation
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Competency Certificate
• Procedural Fairness

Makhetha v The State (A102/2024)

Makhetha v The State (A102/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 210 (10 July 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A102/2024

Judges

Daniso, Van Rhyn

The High Court upheld a sentence appeal in a rape matter, finding the trial court failed to balance mitigating and aggravating factors evenly.

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Sentencing Discretion
• Firearms Control Act
• Sexual Offences Register

Van Jaarsveld v S; Ras v S (1105/2023; 885/2024)

Van Jaarsveld v S; Ras v S (1105/2023; 885/2024) [2025] ZASCA 92 (20 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1105/2023; 885/2024

Judges

Matojane, Unterhalter, Baartman, Tolmay, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that section 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not empower a trial court to alter a verdict after it has been pronounced; any such amendment constitutes a material misdirection. The trial court erred in convicting Van Jaarsveld on forgery after initially acquitting him, and this conviction was set aside. Regarding sentence, the Court held that both trial courts failed to adequately consider the appellants' personal circumstances, the impact on minor children, and the cumulative effect of sentences. The sentences imposed were found to be unduly harsh and…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act
• Sentencing Principles
• Fraud
• Forgery
• Theft
• Firearms Control Act

Mathuthu and Other v S (A56/2024)

Mathuthu and Other v S (A56/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 600 (13 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A56/2024

Judges

Yacoob, Bokako

The High Court upheld a sentence appeal, setting aside unclear regional court sentencing orders and replacing them with concurrent sentences effective from 5 October 2016.

• Sentencing Principles
• Minimum Sentences
• Concurrent Sentences
• Firearms Control Act
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Attempted Murder

Molao v S (A44/2024)

Molao v S (A44/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 647 (9 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A44/2024

Judges

W Domingo, L.A. Retief

The appeal succeeded because the conviction for attempted murder was not sustainable on the facts and law. The weapon used by the appellant was a blank pistol, which is excluded from the definition of 'firearm' under the Firearms Control Act. The charge sheet and evidence did not support a finding that the appellant attempted to kill Sergeant Mashala by 'pointing a firearm and pulling the trigger,' as the appellant was acquitted on the charges of possession and pointing of a firearm. The essential elements of attempted murder, particularly intention, were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. T…

Source excerpt

• Attempted Murder
• Firearms Control Act
• Blank Pistol Exclusion
• Intention
• Conviction And Sentence
• Appeal Upheld

Moepya and Others v S (Appeal) (A289/2022)

Moepya and Others v S (Appeal) (A289/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 605 (6 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A289/2022

Judges

PD Phahlane, Francis-Subbiah

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly evaluated the totality of the evidence, including circumstantial and forensic evidence, and properly applied the relevant legal principles. The appellants' failure to testify in the face of compelling evidence justified an adverse inference. The presumption of possession under section 117(2) of the Firearms Control Act was correctly applied to the first appellant, who controlled the premises. The evidence supported joint possession and common purpose among the appellants. The trial court considered all relevant sentencing factors, includin…

Source excerpt

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Firearms Control Act
• Joint Possession
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Sentencing Principles
• Right To Silence

Gidi v S (Appeal) (A104/2020)

Gidi v S (Appeal) (A104/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 233 (29 May 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A104/2020

Judges

P. S. Van Zyl, M. Francis

The High Court dismissed an appeal against convictions for robbery with aggravating circumstances and unlawful firearm possession, and upheld two 15-year sentences.

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Firearms Control Act
• Identification Evidence
• Minimum Sentencing
• Appeal Principles
• Criminal-appeal

S v Nuwegeld (Review) (383.24)

S v Nuwegeld (Review) (383.24) [2025] ZAWCHC 236 (28 May 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

383/24

Judges

Lekhuleni JD, Nziweni CN

The High Court confirmed convictions for housebreaking and theft, but set aside a nine-year sentence as disproportionate and replaced it with four years and six months.

• Sentencing Principles
• Proportionality
• Previous Convictions
• Firearms Control Act
• Section 103 Inquiry
• Criminal-sentencing

Gilchrist v S (1153/2021)

Gilchrist v S (1153/2021) [2025] ZASCA 57 (12 May 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1153/2021

Judges

Zondi, Schippers, Hughes, Phatshoane, Modiba

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court complied with s 93ter(1) of the Magistrates’ Court Act, as the record reflected that the appellant’s legal representative confirmed no assessors were required. The appellant was legally represented throughout, and there was no indication he was uninformed of his rights. The application to introduce new evidence based on a recanting affidavit was refused, as the affidavit lacked independent corroboration and was not probably true or reliable. The identification evidence was detailed, corroborated, and the appellant himself conceded that the…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Identification Evidence
• Alibi Defence
• Magistrates Court Assessors
• Leave To Introduce New Evidence
• Firearms Control Act

S v Basson and Another (Sentence) (CC67/2020)

S v Basson and Another (Sentence) (CC67/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 194 (30 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC67/2020

Judge

Da Silva Salie

Sentencing judgment for the murder of a seven-year-old child and related offences, resulting in an effective 35 years’ direct imprisonment.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Firearms Control Act
• Gang Related Offences
• Minimum-sentencing