South Africa Case Law

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

Arlow v S (A68 /2022)

Arlow v S (A68 /2022) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 27; 2023 (2) SACR 102 (MM) (15 May 2023)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A68 /2022

Judges

TV Ratshibvumo, AM Kgoele

High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for attempted murder and the five-year sentence, finding the State witnesses’ contradictions immaterial and the appellant’s version improbable.

• Attempted Murder
• Contradictory Evidence
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Minimum Sentencing
• Intention
• Firearm Discharge

Maliza v G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd (4086/2019)

Maliza v G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd (4086/2019) [2023] ZAECMHC 5; [2023] 4 BLLR 377 (ECM) (2 February 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

4086/2019

Judge

Rugunanan

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the second defendant made the alleged defamatory statement. The plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent and not supported by his own witnesses. The documentary evidence and the testimony of the defendants indicated that concerns about the plaintiff's possible involvement in robberies were communicated as part of an investigation, not as a direct accusation or defamatory statement. The plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proof required in civil matters, and the probabilities favoured the defendants' versi…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Reputational Harm
• Onus Of Proof
• Publication
• Wrongfulness
• Intention

Democratic Alliance v Rulumeni (88/2021)

Democratic Alliance v Rulumeni (88/2021) [2023] ZASCA 1 (13 January 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

88/2021

Judges

Makgoka, Nicholls, Hughes, Goosen, Salie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that interviewing the respondent in a private changing room was not objectively wrongful and did not prove an intent to injure dignity.

• Actio Iniuriarum
• Dignity Infringement
• Wrongfulness
• Intention
• Solatium
• Delict

S v Dube (CC03/22)

S v Dube (CC03/22) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 28; 2023 (1) SACR 513 (MM) (3 May 2022)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

CC03/22

Judge

Roelofse

The court found that Mr Dube broke into the deceased's home with the intention to cause her bodily harm and carried out the assault with a knife, knowing that such an act could result in death. Despite this knowledge, he continued with the assault, stabbing the deceased five times and severing a major artery. The evidence established that Mr Dube premeditated the assault and reconciled himself with the possibility of causing death, satisfying the requirements for dolus eventualis. The court held that premeditated murder is established where the perpetrator plans to cause bodily harm and fores…

Source excerpt

• Premeditated Murder
• Dolus Eventualis
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Intention
• Housebreaking
• Immigration Act Offence

S v Makhenke (SS92/2021)

S v Makhenke (SS92/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 165 (22 March 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS92/2021

Judge

Wilson

The court found that the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Makhenke planned or intended to kill either Mawande Mafuya or Siphiwe Buthelezi. The only witness for the State, Wandile Mafuya, was unreliable, self-contradictory, and failed to establish that Mr. Makhenke knew Siphiwe was present or that he uttered words indicating intent to kill. The accused's plea explanation, which was not contradicted by reliable evidence, suggested the fire was set recklessly to attract attention, not to kill. However, Mr. Makhenke must have foreseen the possibility of death or serious inju…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Culpable Homicide
• Arson
• Intention
• Foreseeability

Morake v S (62/2021)

Morake v S (62/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 38 (8 March 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

62/2021

Judge

Daniso

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against a murder conviction and 20-year sentence, finding no reasonable prospects of success.

• Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Leave To Appeal
• Intention
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Minimum-sentencing

S v Mashaba (CC 29/2021; M 18/2021)

S v Mashaba (CC 29/2021; M 18/2021) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 51 (2 November 2021)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

CC 29/2021

Judge

C I Moosa

The court found that the accused's version was not reasonably possibly true and was contradicted by objective evidence, including the absence of injuries and the trajectory of the gunshot. The accused's conduct before and after the shooting indicated a single-minded intention to use his firearm, and his claim of self-defence or involuntary action was rejected. The court held that the accused had the necessary intention to shoot and kill the deceased, and the State discharged its onus to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused failed to provide a credible explanation of innocence, and…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Private Defence
• Intention
• Circumstantial Evidence

Langa v S (CA&R2/2019; CC24/2016)

Langa v S (CA&R2/2019; CC24/2016) [2020] ZAECGHC 20 (3 March 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R2/2019; CC24/2016

Judges

S M Mbenenge, B M Pakati, G H Bloem

High Court criminal appeal over rape convictions dismissed. The court rejected a compulsion defence, upheld the trial’s fairness, and corrected but discounted a judicial-notice error.

• Rape
• Defence Of Compulsion
• Intention
• Judicial Notice
• Effective Legal Representation
• Defence-of-compulsion

Shongwe v S (A171/2018)

Shongwe v S (A171/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 633 (10 October 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A171/2018

Judges

AC Basson, JJ Strijdom

The High Court upheld an appeal against a fraud conviction, finding the State had not proved a misrepresentation or intent beyond reasonable doubt.

• Fraud
• Misrepresentation
• Intention
• Onus Of Proof
• Criminal-appeal
• Burden-of-proof