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
E.M.M v S (A190/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 344 (24 March 2025)
Appeal against a life sentence for rape of a 14-year-old was dismissed. The High Court found no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify deviation.
Rametzi v S (CA27/2022) [2024] ZANWHC 205 (5 August 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against life imprisonment for rape of a 15-year-old complainant, holding that no compelling circumstances justified departure.
Ndlala v S (A09/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 352 (18 April 2023)
Appeal dismissed in a rape conviction and sentence matter. The High Court found the complainant credible, the appellant's version fabricated, and the 8-year sentence justified.
Mantjane v S (A22/17) [2019] ZAGPPHC 270 (28 June 2019)
The High Court dismissed a rape appeal, confirming the appellant’s conviction and life sentence for raping an 11-year-old child. It found no basis to interfere with sentence.
Raath v S (A82 / 2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 72; 2009 (2) SACR 46 (C) (10 December 2008)
Appeal against a murder sentence. The High Court held the killing was not planned or premeditated and reduced life imprisonment to 22 years.
Bondt v S (A405/2007) [2008] ZAWCHC 253 (22 August 2008)
The appeal against conviction was dismissed as the evidence of the State witnesses was found to be credible and corroborated, while the appellant's version was inherently improbable and contradicted by the facts. The magistrate misdirected himself by failing to properly consider the appellant's intoxication as a mitigating factor and by limiting his inquiry into substantial and compelling circumstances. The appellant's state of intoxication, expression of remorse, and lack of prior violent convictions constituted substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a departure from the statuto…
Source excerpt
S v Mabaso (74/03) [2003] ZANWHC 69 (11 December 2003)
The court found no grounds to interfere with the conviction for rape, as the complainant's evidence was credible and supported by the circumstances and medical findings. The appellant's version was not reasonably possibly true, and the evidence of his witness was dismissed as false. However, the sentence of 15 years imprisonment was excessive and induced a sense of shock, given the prescribed minimum sentence of 10 years and mitigating factors such as the appellant's intoxication, status as a first offender, and employment. The sentence was accordingly reduced to 10 years imprisonment.
Source excerpt
Explore more
