South Africa Case Law

Konjo v S (CA 31/2023)

Konjo v S (CA 31/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 238 (16 September 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 31/2023

Judges

Scarrott, Laubscher

The section 112 statement admitted the essential elements of murder, specifically unlawful and intentional killing with direct intent (dolus directus), but did not address or admit planning or premeditation. The trial court erred by convicting the appellant of planned or premeditated murder and applying the minimum sentencing provisions under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The facts did not exclude the reasonable inference that the murder was committed in a fit of rage rather than as a result of planning or premeditation. Consequently, the conviction and sentence must be sub…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Dolus Directus
• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Section 112 Statement

S v Selani (CC13/2023)

S v Selani (CC13/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 723 (29 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC13/2023

Judge

Mosopa

The court found that the State proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on all counts. The evidence of S[...], though a single witness and an accomplice, was corroborated by forensic findings and the accused's own extra-curial statement, which was admitted as having been made freely and voluntarily. The discrepancies in S[...]’s testimony were not material and were reasonably explained by language, cultural, and traumatic factors. The accused's failure to testify in the face of direct evidence further strengthened the State's case. The murders were found to be planned and preme…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Defeating Administration Of Justice
• Single Witness Evidence
• Admissibility Of Statements
• Onus Of Proof

S v Tsiane and Another (CC41/2023)

S v Tsiane and Another (CC41/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 469 (17 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC41/2023

Judge

PD Phahlane

The court found that both accused planned and executed the murder of the deceased, acting in common purpose. The dying declarations made by the deceased to his sister and another witness were admitted as hearsay evidence under section 3(1)(c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act, supported by corroboration from independent witnesses and forensic evidence. The accused's explanations were rejected as untruthful and unreliable, with the court finding that their versions were not reasonably possibly true. The evidence established that the accused assaulted the deceased, poured paraffin on him, an…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Common Purpose
• Dying Declaration
• Admissibility Of Hearsay
• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Criminal Law Amendment Act

Dlomo v S (459/2014)

Dlomo v S (459/2014) [2022] ZAKZPHC 33; 2023 (1) SACR 314 (KZP) (5 August 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

459/2014

Judges

Mossop, Poyo-Dlwati, Mlotshwa

The court held the State did not prove planned or premeditated murder beyond reasonable doubt, and reduced life imprisonment to 22 years.

• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Criminal Law Amendment Act
• Sentence Reduction
• Planned-or-premeditated-murder
• Minimum-sentencing

Maree v S (A252/18)

Maree v S (A252/18) [2019] ZAGPPHC 1077 (19 September 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A252/18

Judges

Neukircher, Mkhawane

The court found that the reconstructed record was sufficiently detailed to allow proper consideration of the appeal and that no objection had been raised to its adequacy. The sentencing court had carefully considered the appellant's personal circumstances, the facts of the case, and the victim impact report. The murder of Mrs Swart was found to fall within the ambit of section 51(1) as the murder of a potential witness, justifying the imposition of a life sentence. The murder of Mr Swart warranted a sentence in excess of the prescribed minimum due to the brutality and circumstances of the off…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Murder Of Potential Witness
• Sentence Appeal
• Concurrent Sentences

S v Mabena (CC 174/2017)

S v Mabena (CC 174/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 893 (28 June 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC 174/2017

Judge

Sardiwalla

After convicting the accused of planned murder, the High Court found no substantial and compelling circumstances and imposed life imprisonment.

• Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Domestic Violence
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Remorse

Taunyane v S (A140/2015)

Taunyane v S (A140/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 308; 2018 (1) SACR 163 (GJ) (28 September 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A140/2015

Judges

Satchwell, Van Oosten, Masipa

The appeal court found that the trial court misdirected itself by making a finding of premeditation only at the sentencing stage, rather than at conviction. The evidence did not exclude all reasonable inferences other than premeditation, and thus the State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the murder was planned or premeditated. The conviction for premeditated murder was set aside and substituted with a conviction for murder with dolus directus. No substantial and compelling circumstances were found to justify deviation from the minimum sentence prescribed by law. However, the cour…

Source excerpt

• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Dolus Directus
• Burden Of Proof
• Appeal Procedure

Makhoba v S (AR 397/12)

Makhoba v S (AR 397/12) [2013] ZAKZPHC 43 (20 August 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 397/12

Judges

Van Zyl, Ntshangase, Ndlovu

The High Court set aside a life sentence for murder and substituted 20 years’ imprisonment, finding the original sentence disproportionately severe.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Concurrent Sentences
• Non Parole Period
• Sentence Appeal

Fredericks v S (A392/2012)

Fredericks v S (A392/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 314 (20 September 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A392/2012

Judges

Bozalek, Olivier

Sentence appeal in a murder and rape case. Life imprisonment for planned murder was upheld, but the rape sentence was reduced to five years and made concurrent.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Rape In Marital Relationship
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Concurrent Sentences
• Parole Eligibility

Langa v S (AR498/09)

Langa v S (AR498/09) [2010] ZAKZPHC 12 (23 April 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR498/09

Judges

Gorven, Govindasamy AJ

The court held that the appellant did not have adequate and timeous knowledge of the State's intention to rely on the minimum sentencing regime under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. There was no mention in the indictment, summary of substantial facts, or during the trial that these provisions would be invoked. Legal representation alone was insufficient to infer such knowledge. The application of section 51(1) by the trial court amounted to a material misdirection, rendering the trial on sentence substantively unfair. Consequently, the sentence imposed under the Act was set a…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Fair Trial Rights
• Planned Or Premeditated Murder
• Material Misdirection
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances