South Africa Case Law

Bila v S (Appeal) (CA56/2022)

Bila v S (Appeal) (CA56/2022) [2025] ZANWHC 90 (29 May 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA56/2022

Judges

N Morei, R D Hendricks

The appeal court found that the trial court did not exercise its sentencing discretion properly and judicially when imposing a sentence of 20 years imprisonment for robbery with aggravating circumstances. The trial court was influenced by personal and emotional considerations, including the appellant's nationality and geographical origin, which resulted in a sentence that was disturbingly excessive and disproportionate to the offence. The prescribed minimum sentence for a first offender under Section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 is 15 years imprisonment, and there were…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Discretion
• Minimum Sentences
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Judicial Misdirection

J.R.M v S (CA54.2020)

J.R.M v S (CA54.2020) [2024] ZANWHC 263 (21 October 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA54.2020

Judges

R D Hendricks, A H Petersen

The Regional Magistrate materially misdirected himself by imposing a sentence of life imprisonment for attempted rape, as section 55 of the Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment Act 32 of 2007 does not prescribe a minimum sentence for such an offence. The jurisdictional limit for imprisonment in the Regional Court is fifteen years. The appellate court, having found the misdirection, is entitled to impose sentence afresh. Considering the appellant's personal circumstances, previous conviction for rape, breach of trust, and the age of the complainant, a sentence of fifteen years impriso…

Source excerpt

• Attempted Rape
• Sentencing Discretion
• Minimum Sentencing Act
• Sexual Offences Act
• Judicial Misdirection

Phadi and Another v S (A1/2024)

Phadi and Another v S (A1/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 169 (3 June 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A1/2024

Judge

Van Zyl

Bail appeal in a Schedule 6 robbery case. The High Court found a material misdirection, held exceptional circumstances were shown, and granted bail with conditions.

• Bail Application
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Judicial Misdirection
• Schedule 6 Offence
• Bail-appeal

De Klerk v S (718/2022)

De Klerk v S (718/2022) [2023] ZASCA 172 (5 December 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

718/2022

Judges

Carelse, Mothle, Hughes

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court should have granted leave to appeal against a murder conviction and 15-year sentence.

• Leave To Appeal
• Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Reasonable Prospects Of Success
• Judicial Misdirection
• Criminal-law

S v Aliyu (A12/2023)

S v Aliyu (A12/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 697 (14 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A12/2023

Judge

Johnson

The High Court upheld the State’s bail appeal, finding the magistrate misdirected himself and setting aside bail pending extradition proceedings.

• Bail Appeal
• Extradition
• Flight Risk
• Judicial Misdirection
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Bail-appeal

Van Rooyen N.O and Another v Mokwena and Others (2064/2021)

Van Rooyen N.O and Another v Mokwena and Others (2064/2021) [2021] ZALMPPHC 23 (18 May 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

2064/2021

Judge

Makume

The High Court set aside an urgent order granted without hearing argument on the merits, finding a breach of audi alteram partem and section 34.

• Audi Alteram Partem
• Section 34 Constitution
• Urgent Interdict
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Fair Hearing
• Judicial Misdirection

Ramadwa v Kokodi (A443/2016)

Ramadwa v Kokodi (A443/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 714 (15 March 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A443/2016

Judges

Maumela, Kubushi

The High Court set aside an eviction order made under the Protection from Harassment Act, holding that the appellant was denied a fair hearing and that eviction required the correct statutory process.

• Protection From Harassment Act
• Right To Fair Hearing
• Eviction Procedure
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Judicial Misdirection

Gonya v The State (A185/16)

Gonya v The State (A185/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1305 (14 November 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A185/16

Judges

Mngqibisa-Thusi, Phahlane

The court found that the sentencing court misdirected itself by imposing a non-parole period without affording the parties an opportunity to make submissions. The imposition of a non-parole period requires exceptional circumstances and a proper evidential basis, which were not established in this case. The failure to alert the parties and allow them to address the court on the issue constituted a procedural irregularity and prejudice to the appellant. Consequently, the non-parole order was set aside, and the appeal in relation to that order was upheld.

Source excerpt

• Non Parole Order
• Sentencing Procedure
• Rape
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Judicial Misdirection

Radebe v S (A721/2015)

Radebe v S (A721/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 857 (15 September 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A721/2015

Judges

S Yacoob, RG Tolmay

High Court appeal against sentence upheld after finding the magistrate relied on extraneous, unsupported considerations and imposed disproportionate penalties.

• Sentencing Discretion
• Appeal Against Sentence
• Receiving Stolen Property
• Driving Without Licence
• Judicial Misdirection
• Sentencing-appeal

S v Kodisang (A421/15)

S v Kodisang (A421/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 490 (20 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A421/15

Judges

Thobane, Ledwaba

On special review, the High Court confirmed the conviction and 36-month sentence, but set aside an improper non-parole condition imposed by the magistrate.

• Sentencing Discretion
• Non Parole Period
• Judicial Misdirection
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Firearm Disqualification
• Criminal-sentencing