South Africa Case Law

S v Ndlovu (CCD30/2025)

S v Ndlovu (CCD30/2025) [2025] ZAKZDHC 52 (5 August 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

CCD30/2025

Judge

Hlatshwayo AJ

The court found that the accused intentionally and with premeditation murdered his ex-partner and her mother, and attempted to murder his son. The evidence, including forensic findings, witness testimony, and the deceased's affidavit, established a pattern of domestic violence, threats, and goal-directed conduct. The accused's claim of intoxication was rejected as false and contrived, given his ability to recall details before and after the incident and his purposeful actions during the offence. The court held that the accused unlawfully possessed firearms and ammunition on both relevant date…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Attempted Murder
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearm
• Unlawful Possession Of Ammunition
• Criminal Capacity
• Intoxication

Japhtha v S (1016/2023)

Japhtha v S (1016/2023) [2025] ZASCA 80 (5 June 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1016/2023

Judges

Zondi, Smith, Unterhalter, Molopa-Sethosa, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a rape conviction after finding material misdirections in assessing a single witness’s unreliable and intoxicated evidence.

• Rape
• Single Witness Evidence
• Cautionary Rule
• Admissions
• Intoxication
• Misdirection

Aletta v S (2024/A36)

Aletta v S (2024/A36) [2025] ZAGPJHC 380 (8 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/A36

Judges

Kuny, Moosa

The High Court upheld the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant in a child-death prosecution arising from a family altercation.

• Murder
• Common Purpose
• Intoxication
• Causation
• Acquittal
• Criminal-law

Naidoo v Road Accident Fund (42843/2021)

Naidoo v Road Accident Fund (42843/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1084 (22 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42843/2021

Judge

Keyser AJ

Default judgment in a Road Accident Fund claim was dismissed after the court found the plaintiff’s evidence unreliable and his intoxication undermined the case.

• Road Accident Fund Claim
• Default Judgment
• Negligence
• Intoxication
• Burden Of Proof
• Default-judgment

Mazosiwe v S (CA&R102/23)

Mazosiwe v S (CA&R102/23) [2024] ZAECMKHC 60 (11 June 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA&R102/23

Judges

Zilwa, Griffiths

The High Court upheld an appeal against a rape conviction, finding material misdirections in the trial court’s evaluation of consent, credibility, and expert evidence.

• Rape
• Consent
• Intoxication
• Mens Rea
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Appeal On Conviction

S v Nhlanhla (SS03/2023)

S v Nhlanhla (SS03/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 547 (23 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS03/2023

Judge

Kumalo

The court found that the accused's conduct was premeditated and that he was aware of his actions at the time of the offence. The accused made repeated threats, acted purposefully, and uttered incriminating statements during the commission of the crime. The evidence of intoxication was insufficient to establish a lack of criminal capacity, as the accused demonstrated awareness and intent throughout the day. The defence of temporary non-pathological incapacity was rejected, and the accused's claim of amnesia was contradicted by eyewitness testimony and his own conduct. The State discharged its…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Criminal Capacity
• Non Pathological Incapacity
• Intoxication
• Onus Of Proof
• Premeditation

Metsing v S (A119/2022)

Metsing v S (A119/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 57 (2 March 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A119/2022

Judges

Van Rhyn, Berry

The court found that, although the offence was serious and involved repeated rape, the appellant's personal circumstances—including his youth, lack of previous convictions, time spent in custody awaiting trial, and intoxication at the time—constituted substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a departure from the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment. The court held that a lengthy term of imprisonment was appropriate but that life imprisonment would be disproportionate and unjust in the circumstances. Accordingly, the sentence was set aside and replaced with a sentence of…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum Sentences
• Mitigating Factors
• Intoxication
• Sentencing Discretion

Conradie v S (KS 18/2020)

Conradie v S (KS 18/2020) [2023] ZANCHC 3 (20 January 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

KS 18/2020

Judge

Lever

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against life sentences for rape and murder, finding no substantial and compelling reasons for a lesser sentence.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Leave To Appeal
• Intoxication
• Rehabilitation
• Remorse

S v Teleke (15/2022)

S v Teleke (15/2022) [2022] ZAECMKHC 40 (14 April 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

15/2022

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that the complainant was raped and assaulted by an intruder who broke into her home. Although the complainant could not identify her attacker, circumstantial evidence, including the accused being found asleep in her bed with his pants and underwear down, supported the inference that Mr Teleke was the perpetrator. The accused's version was inconsistent, improbable, and contradicted by credible state witnesses. The defence of lack of criminal capacity due to intoxication was rejected, as the evidence showed the accused acted consciously and voluntarily, and none of the witnesses…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Housebreaking With Intent To Rape
• Criminal Capacity
• Intoxication
• Circumstantial Evidence

S v Ntshaba (57/2022)

S v Ntshaba (57/2022) [2022] ZAECGHC 3 (7 February 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

57/2022

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that all three accused were guilty of murder, acting intentionally and unlawfully in furtherance of a common purpose. The evidence established that accused 3, Faniso, was not compelled by necessity or threat to participate in the murder; her version of compulsion was not reasonably possibly true and contradicted her own prior statement and conduct. The court accepted the testimony of accused 1 and 2, as well as the statement to Captain Klaas, as credible and reliable. The murder was not planned or premeditated, but rather impulsive and executed shortly after the decision was m…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Common Purpose
• Necessity Defence
• Intoxication
• Premeditation
• Admissibility Of Statements