South Africa Case Law

Moatshe v S (CA 82/2018)

Moatshe v S (CA 82/2018) [2024] ZANWHC 100 (9 April 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 82/2018

Judges

Petersen, Williams

The court found that the convictions on counts 1 and 2 were justified based on credible witness testimony and DNA evidence linking the appellant to the crimes. The trial court did not misdirect itself in its factual findings. However, the sentence of life imprisonment on count 2 was impermissible, as the charge sheet referenced section 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the appellant was not properly warned of the possibility of a life sentence under section 51(1). This violated the appellant's right to a fair trial. The court set aside the life sentence and imposed fifteen years imp…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Fair Trial Rights
• Firearms Control
• Sexual Offender Register

Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Buthelezi (142/18)

Director of Public Prosecutions: Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Buthelezi (142/18) [2019] ZASCA 170; 2020 (2) SACR 113 (SCA) (29 November 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

142/18

Judges

Leach, Saldulker, Mokgohloa, Plasket, Dolamo

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the regional court had jurisdiction to impose a sentence of life imprisonment for rape of a minor under s 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, as amended by Act 38 of 2007. The reference to the wrong Act in the charge sheet was a typographical error and did not prejudice the respondent, who was fully aware of the nature of the charge and the minimum sentence applicable. The respondent's fair trial rights were not infringed, and the dictum in S v Ndlovu was not applicable due to factual distinctions. The high court erred in law by setting a…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Fair Trial Rights
• Typographical Error In Charge Sheet

M v M (A3076/2016)

M v M (A3076/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 279 (28 March 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3076/2016

Judges

Modiba, Carelse

The Regional Divorce Court, as a creature of statute, does not possess inherent jurisdiction and cannot be vested with such powers by statute. Section 29(1B)(a) and (b) of the Magistrates' Courts Act does not extend the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to the Regional Divorce Court, nor does it confer the power to grant civil contempt orders. The only contempt jurisdiction conferred upon Magistrates' Courts is criminal contempt under section 106 of the Magistrates' Courts Act. Therefore, the order of civil contempt granted by the Regional Divorce Court was invalid and must be set aside. The…

Source excerpt

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Divorce Order Enforcement

Hargreaves v S (AR669/13)

Hargreaves v S (AR669/13) [2015] ZAKZPHC 19 (12 February 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR669/13

Judges

Ndlovu, Ntshangase

The High Court upheld a life sentence for two rape convictions but set aside life imprisonment for attempted murder, replacing it with 10 years concurrent.

• Rape
• Attempted Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Attempted-murder

S v Mudau and Others (631/2013)

S v Mudau and Others (631/2013) [2014] ZASCA 190 (27 November 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

631/2013

Judges

M Maya, C Wallis, N Dambuza

The SCA held that regional courts could impose life imprisonment under s 53A, but it lacked jurisdiction to hear the criminal appeal directly from the regional court.

• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Life Imprisonment Sentencing
• Criminal Appeal Procedure
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Criminal-appeal-procedure
• Regional-court-jurisdiction

Ricardo v S (A227/2007)

Ricardo v S (A227/2007) [2008] ZAWCHC 193 (9 May 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A227/2007

Judges

Bozalek, Irish

The magistrate misdirected himself by imposing sentences for murder and attempted robbery with aggravating circumstances, as he lacked jurisdiction under the minimum sentence regime in force at the time. The correct procedure was to refer the matter to a single judge of the High Court for sentencing in terms of section 52 of Act 105 of 1997. The subsequent legislative amendments do not alter this requirement for appeals arising from convictions and sentences imposed under the earlier regime, due to the savings clause in section 53(3). Accordingly, both sentences are set aside, the appeal is s…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentences
• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Aggravating Circumstances
• Remittal For Sentencing

S v Sekgobela and Another , S v Tebele ; S v Kilane ; S v Mahlasela ; S v Magasela (A953/02 , A49/03 , A680/04 , A9/03 , A499/03)

S v Sekgobela and Another , S v Tebele ; S v Kilane ; S v Mahlasela ; S v Magasela (A953/02 , A49/03 , A680/04 , A9/03 , A499/03) [2006] ZAGPHC 19; 2006 (2) SACR 309 (W) (2 March 2006)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A953/02 , A49/03 , A680/04 , A9/03 , A499/03

Judges

BH Mbha, K Satchwell

The High Court set aside regional court sentences for rape cases caught by section 52 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and referred each matter for High Court sentencing.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Rape Of Minor
• Multiple Rape
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Jurisdiction Of Regional Courts
• Minimum-sentencing