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
Mfana Ignitius Kubai v S (923/2023) [2024] ZASCA 123; 2024 (2) SACR 595 (SCA) (30 August 2024)
The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a 15-year sentence for rhino poaching, holding that the high court misdirected itself and that 9 years was appropriate.
Kubai and Another v S (CC14/2019) [2023] ZALMPTHC 1; 2023 (2) SACR 196 (LT) (27 January 2023)
The appellate court found that the trial court erred by not sentencing the appellant in accordance with the penalty clause under section 117(1)(a) of the Limpopo Environmental Management Act, which prescribes a maximum of 15 years' imprisonment for hunting specially protected wild animals. The appellant's personal circumstances, including being a first offender and breadwinner, did not outweigh the aggravating factors: his prior involvement in rhino poaching, knowledge of the crime, and the seriousness of the offence. Rhino poaching is a national crisis with severe ecological and societal imp…
Source excerpt
S v Ndlovu and Others (CC90/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 25; [2019] 2 All SA 773 (ECG) (15 March 2019)
Multiple accused were convicted for a rhino-poaching scheme after the court accepted challenged search evidence, forensic dart comparisons, cellphone data, and circumstantial links.
Mkhabela and Others v S (A334/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 936 (8 November 2016)
The High Court dismissed a sentence appeal in a rhino-poaching conspiracy case, finding no material misdirection and no basis to interfere with the custodial sentences.
National Director of Public Prosecution v Mniki (2190/2009) [2010] ZAECPEHC 69 (1 November 2010)
The High Court granted the applicant leave to appeal to the Full Bench, finding reasonable prospects that another court could reach a different conclusion on the facts and the vehicle's role.
Coetzee v Steenkamp (579/2009) [2010] ZANCHC 25 (18 June 2010)
The court found that the plaintiff was not a passive passenger but an active participant in the illegal hunting expedition, having shot a spring-hare and assisted with equipment. The plaintiff's ignorance of the law was rejected as incredible given his background and experience. The principle nemo ex suo delicto meliorem suam conditionem facere potest was applied, precluding the plaintiff from benefiting from his own unlawful conduct. The court distinguished the present case from authorities where the passenger's illegal act was not causally linked to the claim, finding that the plaintiff's p…
Source excerpt
S v Setsoale (A220/2006) [2006] ZAGPHC 157 (27 February 2006)
Review judgment setting aside a conviction for hunting warthogs without a permit because warthogs were not included in the Act’s definition of “game”.
Explore more
