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
Sikhakhane and Another v S (CC16/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 35 (27 January 2025)
The High Court refused leave to appeal against convictions, holding the applicants had not shown reasonable prospects of success under the Superior Courts Act.
Molise v S (43/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 155 (22 May 2024)
Leave to appeal was granted in a criminal matter involving convictions, life sentences, and disputes over a hostile witness’s statements and accomplice evidence.
S v Murphy and Others - Reasons for Reconsideration of Previous Ruling (CC27/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC 185; 2023 (2) SACR 341 (WCC) (12 July 2023)
The court held that the statutory prohibitions in sections 219 and 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act apply broadly to extra-curial confessions and admissions, regardless of whether the maker is a co-accused or an accomplice who becomes a State witness under section 204. The Law of Evidence Amendment Act does not override these prohibitions, as section 3(2) expressly prevents hearsay evidence from being admitted if another law renders it inadmissible. The Constitutional Court in Mhlongo and subsequent cases authoritatively restored the common law position that extra-curial statements by an ac…
Source excerpt
S v Beja and Another (CC18/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 113 (19 May 2023)
The court found that Tofile was hostile to the prosecution, as evidenced by his refusal to cooperate, evasion of the subpoena, and contradictory statements. The impeachment application was governed by section 190(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which allows for the impeachment of a witness's credibility. The court held that the prior inconsistent statement made by Tofile was, prima facie, freely and voluntarily given and that no promises from the police induced the statement. The admissibility of the statement as evidence is distinct from its truth and is subject to further challenge. The c…
Source excerpt
Classen & Another v The State (803/21) [2022] ZASCA 130 (3 October 2022)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the high court erred in attaching excessive weight to Mrs Shortridge's recanted statement without properly considering the circumstances under which it was made, including undue pressure from the deceased's family and community. The court held that her testimony explaining the pressure and her lack of independent identification of the assailants should not have been rejected. The corroborative evidence relied upon by the high court, including Mr Wesley's statements and the testimony of Mrs Shortridge's husband, was found to be unreliable and affected by…
Source excerpt
Mabaso v S (677/2020) [2021] ZASCA 98 (9 July 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside Theresa Mabaso’s murder conviction, holding that the evidence against her was inadmissible against a co-accused and insufficient to sustain guilt.
Ramatlotlo and Others v S (A94/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 11 (10 January 2019)
The Free State High Court upheld a criminal appeal, finding that the failure to allege common purpose in the charge sheet rendered the trial unfair.
Rathumbu v S (369/11) [2012] ZASCA 51; 2012 (2) SACR 219 (SCA) (30 March 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a witness’s disavowed police statement was properly admitted under hearsay rules and upheld the murder conviction.
Mcoseli v S (CA&R129/2011) [2011] ZAECGHC 63; 2012 (2) SACR 82 (ECG) (2 November 2011)
The court set aside convictions for murder and firearm possession after finding the magistrate gave no proper reasons and the State failed to prove the case.
Mathonsi v S (AR 294/10) [2011] ZAKZPHC 33; 2012 (1) SACR 335 (KZP) (26 July 2011)
The court held that the previous inconsistent statement made by the hostile witness, Cele, was admissible as substantive evidence due to sufficient guarantees of reliability: it was made under oath, the witness was cross-examined by both parties, and the police officer who recorded the statement testified as to its circumstances. The statement was found to be the product of the witness's personal knowledge and not police fabrication. The court found no evidence of coercion or involuntariness. The statement, together with corroborating evidence such as ballistic links between the firearms and…
Source excerpt
Explore more
