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
Nzima v S (Appeal) (A132/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 483 (19 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed Nzima’s appeal against conviction for murder and related offences, holding that the accomplice evidence was reliable and corroborated.
S v Mello and Others (SS8/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1468 (5 December 2023)
The High Court granted a section 174 discharge after finding the State’s eyewitness evidence materially contradictory and insufficient to sustain a prima facie case.
Msiza and Another v S - Appeal (A223/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 729 (16 August 2023)
The appeal court found that the trial court correctly accepted the evidence of the complainants and State witnesses, which was credible and reliable. The appellants' own admissions, DNA evidence, and the consistent testimony of the complainants established that the sexual intercourse was not consensual and that the elements of rape and theft were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court properly considered the appellants' personal circumstances and pre-sentencing reports, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify a lesser sentence. The sentences imposed were in acc…
Source excerpt
Kbelo and Another v S (A200/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 558 (25 May 2023)
Appeal partly succeeded: robbery convictions were set aside, one appellant was convicted of possession of suspected stolen property, and the other was acquitted.
S v Gregory (SS 122/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 358 (21 April 2023)
The court found that the aggravating circumstances, including the brutality of the offences, the relationship between the accused and victims, the murder of a child, and the accused's prior convictions for violent crimes, far outweighed any mitigating factors. The accused's guilty plea and time spent in custody were considered but did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances. The court held that the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment for each count of murder and rape was appropriate and just, given the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence, retributio…
Source excerpt
Sangweni v S (A102/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 735 (1 July 2022)
The High Court upheld a rape appeal, finding the State had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and set aside both conviction and sentence.
Dorrepaal v S (CA&R26/2020) [2021] ZANCHC 14 (12 March 2021)
Appeal against convictions for child sexual offences and life sentences dismissed; the High Court upheld the complainant’s evidence, corroboration, and minimum sentences.
Solomons v S (CA & R 21/2020) [2021] ZANCHC 4 (29 January 2021)
The court found that the appellant did not act in self-defence when she stabbed the deceased, as the deceased posed no threat and carried no weapon at the time. The evidence of the single witness, Mr Meckock, was corroborated and reliable. The appellant's own evidence was inconsistent and lacked credibility. The trial magistrate correctly convicted the appellant of murder with intention in the form of dolus eventualis, as she subjectively foresaw the possibility of death resulting from her act and reconciled herself to that outcome. While the minimum sentence for murder is 15 years' imprisonm…
Source excerpt
Madlala v S (338/2018) [2019] ZASCA 176 (2 December 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a sentence appeal, upholding minimum sentences of 15 years and life imprisonment for robbery with aggravating circumstances and murder.
Lekoro v S (A151/19) [2019] ZAGPPHC 937 (15 November 2019)
The appeal court found that the trial court correctly relied on circumstantial evidence to convict the appellant of murder. The appellant was the last person seen with the deceased, had motive, and his conduct after the incident was inconsistent with innocence. The evidence excluded the reasonable possibility of another perpetrator. Regarding sentence, the court held that the trial court properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's personal circumstances, and found no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify a lesser sentence. The prescribed minimum sentence…
Source excerpt
Explore more
