South Africa Case Law

Msiza v S (A36/2024)

Msiza v S (A36/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 542 (29 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A36/2024

Judges

Retief, Domingo

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly accepted the evidence of the two eyewitnesses, whose testimony was consistent and credible regarding the appellant's participation in the assault that led to the deceased's death. The appellant's version was rejected as improbable and false beyond reasonable doubt, especially in light of his admissions and the corroborated eyewitness accounts. The court held that the inconsistencies raised by the appellant were immaterial to the central facts and did not disturb the finding of guilt. Regarding sentence, the court found no substantial and c…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Common Purpose
• Minimum Sentencing
• Intent
• Section 51 Criminal Law Amendment Act

Potgieter v S (A46/2024)

Potgieter v S (A46/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1148 (7 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A46/2024

Judges

B Neukircher, NCJ Mncube

The court found that the appellant was incorrectly charged with a single count of fraud, as the evidence related to seven separate incidents, none of which individually exceeded R100,000. Therefore, the minimum sentencing provisions of Act 105 of 1997 were not applicable. The evidence did not establish that the appellant personally completed or authorised the duplicated collection requests, nor did it prove that he had the requisite intent to defraud or steal. The duplications were the result of administrative inefficiencies and delays in documentation, and payments were made when duplication…

Source excerpt

• Fraud
• Minimum Sentencing
• Intent
• Criminal Liability
• Misrepresentation

Gysman v S (A17/24)

Gysman v S (A17/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 227 (28 August 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A147/24

Judges

Slingers, Montzinger

The appeal court found that the trial court was justified in accepting the evidence of the single eyewitness and rejecting the appellant's improbable version. The cumulative circumstances—the nature and duration of the assault, the use of a knife, the position of the deceased and her mother, and the location of the wound—supported the inference that the appellant had the requisite intent to kill. Even if the trial court had erred in finding dolus directus, the evidence overwhelmingly supported a conviction on the basis of dolus eventualis. The appellant's actions demonstrated clear foresight…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Intent
• Single Witness Evidence
• Dolus Directus
• Dolus Eventualis
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 208

Smit v S (1256/2022)

Smit v S (1256/2022) [2023] ZASCA 154 (17 November 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1256/2022

Judges

Nicholls, Mothle, Mabindla-Boqwana, Meyer, Kathree-Setiloane

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, finding no proof of dolus eventualis for fraud and holding that the unrepresented appellant had a fair trial.

• Fraud
• Dolus Eventualis
• Intent
• Misrepresentation
• Fair Trial
• Legal Representation

S v Mantshongo (CC 53/2022)

S v Mantshongo (CC 53/2022) [2023] ZAECMKHC 7 (19 January 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CC 53/2022

Judge

T Malusi

The accused pleaded guilty to four rape counts and one robbery count. The High Court accepted his section 112(2) admissions and convicted him on all charges.

• Rape
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Sexual Offences Amendment Act
• Intent
• Consent

Ngqola v S (CA&R 30/2018)

Ngqola v S (CA&R 30/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 45 (16 April 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 30/2018

Judges

Rugunanan, Bloem

The High Court dismissed a murder appeal, holding that the appellant’s claim of accidental discharge was false beyond reasonable doubt and that the 18-year sentence stood.

• Murder
• Intention
• Minimum Sentencing
• Firearm Handling
• Appeal Principles
• Criminal-appeal

Mkhwanazi v S (A863/2016)

Mkhwanazi v S (A863/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1140 (8 August 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A863/2016

Judges

C Swanepoel, D S Molefe

The court found that the only reasonable inference from the evidence was that the appellant foresaw the possibility that her actions—beating the deceased, a sickly and vulnerable person, with a meter-long branch—could result in his death. The medical evidence established that the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head, and the injuries were inconsistent with a simple fall. The appellant's conduct after the incident, including her failure to seek medical assistance and attempts to conceal the events, further supported the conclusion that she acted with dolus eventualis. The trial co…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Dolus Eventualis
• Assessment Of Evidence
• Intent
• Admissibility Of Expert Evidence

S v Mabe (A32/2016)

S v Mabe (A32/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 6 (21 January 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A32/2016

Judges

S Potterill, A J Bam

The High Court set aside a theft conviction where the accused’s guilty plea denied intent to permanently deprive, requiring a plea of not guilty instead.

• Theft
• Intention
• Guilty Plea
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 112
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 113
• Guilty-plea

Makhuvele v S (A05/2015)

Makhuvele v S (A05/2015) [2015] ZALMPPHC 1 (7 October 2015)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

A05/2015

Judges

Phatudi, Makhafola

The High Court upheld an appeal against a theft conviction, finding the evidence did not prove the appellant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the motor vehicle.

• Theft
• Accomplice Evidence
• Burden Of Proof
• Intention
• Appeal Procedure
• Criminal-appeal

S v Olyn (K/S4/2010)

S v Olyn (K/S4/2010) [2014] ZANCHC 13 (6 November 2014)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

K/S4/2010

Judge

Pakati

The High Court convicted the accused of rape, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and murder, relying on cumulative circumstantial evidence and rejecting his version.

• Rape
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Murder
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Dna Evidence
• Intent