South Africa Case Law

Ntuli v S (128/2023)

Ntuli v S (128/2023) [2025] ZASCA 114 (30 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

128/2023

Judges

Matojane, Unterhalter, Koen, Coppin, Dawood

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State did not indicate in the charge sheet, nor at any stage of the proceedings, that it intended to rely on the doctrine of common purpose in respect of the attempted murder counts. The evidence presented was contradictory regarding the appellant's direct participation, and the State's case was prosecuted on the basis of individual culpability. The full court erred in confirming the convictions by applying common purpose, as the appellant was not forewarned and could not properly defend himself against that basis for conviction. This amounted to a vi…

Source excerpt

• Common Purpose
• Fair Trial Rights
• Charge Sheet Requirements
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

M.P.S v S (A21/2024)

M.P.S v S (A21/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 703 (21 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A21/2024

Judges

Malindi, Mia

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly applied the cautionary rule to the evidence of the complainant, a single child witness. The complainant's account was corroborated by medical evidence indicating injuries consistent with vaginal penetration, her mother's testimony regarding her pain and distress, and her consistent reporting of the incident. The contradictions in the State's case were not material and did not undermine the overall credibility of the complainant. The appellant's denial was found to be false and not reasonably possibly true when viewed against the totality o…

Source excerpt

• Rape Of Minor
• Single Witness Cautionary Rule
• Credibility Of Child Witness
• Corroboration
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Powers Of Appeal Court

Mthombeni v S (A210/2023)

Mthombeni v S (A210/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 521 (22 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A210/2023

Judges

SK Hassim, FS Nemutandani

The trial court misdirected itself by treating the appellant as a second offender for 'robbery with aggravating circumstances' when his previous conviction was for 'robbery' without aggravating circumstances. The wording of section 51(2)(a)(ii) of the Minimum Sentences Act requires that the previous conviction be of the same kind or degree, i.e., 'robbery with aggravating circumstances.' There was no evidence that the appellant's previous conviction involved aggravating circumstances or the taking of a motor vehicle. Therefore, the appellant should have been sentenced as a first offender, att…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentences Act
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Sentencing Misdirection
• Previous Convictions
• Appeal Powers

Yurell v S (Appeal) (CA & R: 55/2024)

Yurell v S (Appeal) (CA & R: 55/2024) [2025] ZANCHC 16 (28 February 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA & R: 55/2024

Judges

MC Mamosebo, A Stanton

The court found that the complainant's evidence was credible, corroborated by independent witnesses and medical findings. The appellant's version was rejected as not reasonably possibly true and contradicted by the weight of the evidence. The complainant's submission to sexual intercourse was due to intimidation, threats, and physical violence, not consent. The trial court's application of the cautionary rule was correct, and the sequence of assault and rape justified the application of the Minimum Sentences Act. The appellant's arguments regarding misdirection, consent, and the relevance of…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Consent
• Sexual Offences Act
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Single Witness Rule
• Mens Rea

S v Cramford (Sentence) (CC 69/2024)

S v Cramford (Sentence) (CC 69/2024) [2025] ZAECMKHC 13 (7 February 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CC 69/2024

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that the aggravating circumstances of the offences—repeated rape of a vulnerable child, abuse of trust, calculated conduct, and psychological harm—far outweighed any mitigating factors. The accused's plea of guilty and claimed remorse were not found to be genuine or sufficient to justify deviation from the statutory minimum sentence. The court emphasized that the interests of society and the protection of children require the strictest sanction. No substantial and compelling circumstances were present to warrant a lesser sentence. Accordingly, the prescribed minimum sentence o…

Source excerpt

• Rape Of Minor
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Sentencing Principles
• Victim Impact
• Remorse And Mitigation
• Child Protection Register

J.L.C.L v S (A342/2023)

J.L.C.L v S (A342/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1152 (5 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A342/2023

Judges

Khashane Manamela, JJ Strijdom

The High Court dismissed a sentence appeal against life imprisonment for rape of a minor, holding that no substantial and compelling circumstances justified departure.

• Minimum Sentences Act
• Rape Of Minor
• Sentencing Discretion
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Victim Impact Statement
• Remorse And Rehabilitation

S v Maboko (Sentence) (CC50/2023)

S v Maboko (Sentence) (CC50/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 166 (1 November 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

CC50/2023

Judge

Monene

The High Court imposed three life terms, 15 years for robbery with aggravating circumstances, and 3 years for firearm possession after finding no mitigation.

• Minimum Sentences Act
• Premeditated Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearm
• Sentencing Principles
• Victim Impact Statements

Mgwali v S (A97/2024)

Mgwali v S (A97/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 335 (16 October 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A97/2024

Judges

Mangcu-Lockwood, Kantor

The court found that the complainant's evidence was credible, consistent, and corroborated by her brother and circumstantial evidence. The appellant's defence of consensual sex was undermined by contradictions and lack of credibility, particularly regarding the complainant's state of sobriety and the sequence of events. The medical evidence confirmed recent penetration but did not exclude consensual sex; however, the totality of evidence supported the absence of consent. The court held that the Magistrate correctly applied the minimum sentencing regime under section 51(2)(b) of the Criminal L…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Child Witness Evidence
• Consent
• Sentencing Jurisdiction

Ngwane v S (AR375/2021)

Ngwane v S (AR375/2021) [2024] ZAKZPHC 101 (18 September 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR375/2021

Judges

Henriques, Bedderson, Jikela

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a life sentence for rape of a minor, finding no unfairness, no proven prejudice, and no basis to depart from the minimum sentence.

• Minimum Sentences Act
• Rape Of Minor
• Onus Of Proof Age
• Fair Trial Rights
• Statutory Interpretation
• Criminal-law

Lorenzi v S (A130/21)

Lorenzi v S (A130/21) [2024] ZAWCHC 229; 2025 (1) SACR 421 (WCC) (29 August 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A130/21

Judge

Lekhuleni

High Court appeal against refusal of bail pending reconsideration of leave to appeal was dismissed. The court held the appellant had not shown that bail was in the interests of justice.

• Bail Pending Appeal
• Minimum Sentences Act
• Flight Risk
• White Collar Crime
• Section 17 2 F Superior Courts Act
• Correctional Supervision