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
Billy v S (Appeal) (A75/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 376 (12 November 2024)
The High Court upheld the murder conviction but set aside the life sentence, finding no proof of premeditation and replacing it with 20 years' imprisonment.
Nkutha v S (A274/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 726 (4 November 2021)
The court found no basis to interfere with the magistrate's findings on fact or credibility. The evidence of the State witnesses was corroborated by the post-mortem report and the circumstances of the assault. The appellant's version was found to be improbable and not reasonably possibly true. The magistrate correctly concluded that the appellant had the intention to kill the deceased, as he subjectively foresaw the possibility of death resulting from his actions but continued the assault. There was no misdirection or patent error in the proceedings, and the conviction was justified.
Source excerpt
Ernest v S (AR66/2020) [2020] ZAKZPHC 76; 2021 (1) SACR 324 (KZP) (10 December 2020)
The appeal succeeded because the trial court materially misdirected itself in its evaluation of the evidence and application of the law on self-defence. The State's witnesses were found to be unreliable, and the trial court failed to properly assess the appellant's version, which remained consistent and was the only reliable account before the court. The magistrate erred by relying on the post-mortem report without calling the pathologist to clarify its findings, and by disregarding the appellant's credible assertion that he acted in self-defence under imminent threat. The State failed to pro…
Source excerpt
Khumalo v S (A199/2019) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1067 (29 November 2019)
The court found that the trial Magistrate properly evaluated all the evidence, including the testimony of Ms. Twanambi, the single witness to the assault. Her evidence was consistent, credible, and corroborated by the medical evidence. The appellant's version was riddled with contradictions and improbabilities, justifying its rejection. The injuries sustained by the deceased, including a fractured skull and defensive wounds, indicated a deliberate and repeated assault with a dangerous weapon, establishing the appellant's intention to kill. The cautionary rule regarding single witnesses was co…
Source excerpt
Gonyonga v S (A100-2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 323 (18 July 2019)
The High Court upheld a murder conviction but reduced the sentence from 15 to 12 years after finding the trial court failed to consider substantial and compelling circumstances.
Zozo v S (CA&R8/14) [2015] ZAECBHC 3 (13 February 2015)
The appeal court found that the regional magistrate erred in focusing almost exclusively on deterrence and failing to adequately consider the appellant's personal circumstances and the facts of the case. The appellant acted out of character, was provoked, had consumed alcohol, and inflicted a single stab wound in the heat of the moment. These factors cumulatively constituted substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. The conviction for murder was upheld, but the sentence was reduced from 20 years to 12 years’ imprisonment.
Source excerpt
Phalatse v S (CC 52/99) [2009] ZANWHC 21 (3 September 2009)
The court granted condonation for late filing and a defective leave-to-appeal notice, refused leave to appeal against conviction, and granted leave against sentence.
S v Praag (617/95) [1996] ZASCA 56 (28 May 1996)
The court found that the appellant's actions—arming himself with a large knife, travelling to his place of employment, confronting the complainant, striking him on the head, threatening to kill him, and repeatedly stabbing at him—were not impulsive but deliberate. The severity and manner of the attack, coupled with the appellant's threats, led to the only reasonable inference that he intended to kill the complainant. The trial magistrate's acceptance of the complainant's evidence and rejection of the appellant's version was justified, especially given the medical evidence. The sentence of thr…
Source excerpt
S v Mokoena (78/91) [1993] ZASCA 69 (25 May 1993)
Appeal by David Mokoena against murder convictions and death sentences dismissed; the court upheld admissibility of his statement and confirmed all three death sentences.
S v Oliver (196/1990) [1991] ZASCA 193 (29 November 1991)
The Supreme Court of Appeal found no merit in any of the alleged irregularities raised by the appellant. The trial judge exercised his discretion properly under section 186, and there was no basis for calling medical evidence regarding the effects of alcohol and Epanutin. The assessor's questioning did not exceed the bounds of propriety. The trial court's reasoning was sound, and it was implicit that the court considered whether the appellant's version could reasonably possibly be true. The evidence justified the rejection of the appellant's explanation as not credible, and the only reasonabl…
Source excerpt
Explore more
