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
S v Jam-Jam (CC37/23) [2024] ZAECMHC 103 (17 July 2024)
High Court criminal judgment convicting the accused of robbery, two murders, and possession of a dangerous weapon after rejecting his alibi.
S v Mchunu (SS65/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1411 (28 November 2023)
The court found that Mr Mchunu acted out of genuine fear, seeking police assistance after being chased by a group. The police did not treat him as a suspect but attempted to forcibly remove him from their vehicle, using pepper spray and pointing firearms. During the ensuing scuffle, Mr Mchunu used a knife found in the police van to defend himself, resulting in the fatal stabbing of Warrant Officer Marutla. The court accepted Mr Mchunu's version as reasonably possibly true, corroborated by witness testimony and physical evidence. The State failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Mchunu…
Source excerpt
S v Mukwevho (Sentence) (SS39/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1380 (26 November 2023)
High Court sentencing decision imposing five life terms for rape and concurrent terms for related housebreaking, robbery, kidnapping, and weapon offences.
S v Komane (A1114/09, 1664, 18/200 (Makweng), A354/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 363 (8 December 2009)
Review of a conviction for possession of knives. The High Court found the accused had a reasonable explanation for possession and set aside the conviction and sentence.
S v Leo (B489/06) [2008] ZAWCHC 4; 2008 (2) SACR 198 (C) (12 February 2008)
The conviction and sentence were set aside because the facts admitted by the accused in his written plea explanation did not establish all the essential elements of the offence under section 2(1) of the Dangerous Weapons Act 71 of 1968. Specifically, there was no evidence regarding the nature, quality, or specifications of the knife, nor any detail about the circumstances of possession. The magistrate failed to clarify these aspects or apply section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The constitutional concern regarding gender specificity in the statute is without merit, as the Interpretation…
Source excerpt
Explore more
