South Africa Case Law

Nojiyeza v S (AR185/23)

Nojiyeza v S (AR185/23) [2024] ZAKZPHC 63; 2024 (2) SACR 516 (KZP) (12 August 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR185/23

Judges

Chithi, Sibisi

The court found that the admissions made by the appellant's legal representative during pre-trial conferences regarding the ballistic report and chain evidence constituted formal admissions under section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act. These admissions relieved the State of the burden to prove those facts, and the appellant did not challenge or seek to revoke them at any stage. The ballistic report was properly admitted, and the appellant's attorney had a copy, making it unnecessary to read it into the record. The evidence of the police officers was corroborated and clear regarding the rec…

Source excerpt

• Possession Of Prohibited Firearm
• Possession Of Ammunition
• Admission Of Evidence
• Standard Of Proof
• Chain Of Evidence
• Mutually Destructive Versions

S v Leema (SS 98/2022)

S v Leema (SS 98/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1425 (8 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS 98/2022

Judge

Britz

The court found that the offences committed by the accused were of an extremely serious nature, involving a crime spree with aggravating circumstances such as acting in common purpose, callous execution, and lack of remorse. The accused's personal circumstances, including being a first offender and a parent, were considered ordinary and did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances. The aggravating factors, including the nature of the crimes, use of a prohibited firearm, and the impact on victims, far outweighed any mitigation. The court held that the prescribed minimum sentences…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Possession Of Prohibited Firearm
• Unlawful Possession Of Ammunition
• Illegal Entry

S v Leema (SS 98/2022)

S v Leema (SS 98/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1415 (5 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS 98/2022

Judge

Britz

The High Court convicted the accused on murder, robbery, firearm, ammunition and immigration charges after accepting witness evidence, hearsay, and a confession.

• Murder
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Possession Of Prohibited Firearm
• Unlawful Possession Of Ammunition
• Immigration Offence
• Common Purpose

Sthabiso and Others v S (SS114/2018)

Sthabiso and Others v S (SS114/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1100 (2 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS114/2018

Judge

MAKUME

High Court refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence in a murder and firearm matter, finding no reasonable prospect of success and upholding a 35-year effective sentence.

• Leave To Appeal
• Murder
• Possession Of Unlicensed Firearm
• Possession Of Prohibited Firearm
• Possession Of Ammunition
• Minimum Sentencing

Mayile v S (CA& R 12/2019)

Mayile v S (CA& R 12/2019) [2022] ZAECBHC 35 (2 November 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

CA& R 12/2019

Judges

Govindjee, Chithi

The High Court dismissed an appeal against convictions for robbery with aggravating circumstances and possession of a prohibited firearm, and upheld the sentence.

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Possession Of Prohibited Firearm
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Evaluation Of Witness Credibility
• Sentencing Principles
• Criminal-appeal

S v Mashiane and Another (CC 91/2018; 10/2/11/1-L58/2018)

S v Mashiane and Another (CC 91/2018; 10/2/11/1-L58/2018) [2020] ZALMPPHC 55 (10 June 2020)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

CC 91/2018; 10/2/11/1-L58/2018

Judge

Mudau

Sentencing judgment in a murder, rape and robbery case. The High Court found no substantial and compelling reasons to depart from mandatory minimum sentences.

• Murder
• Rape
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Mandatory Minimum Sentences
• Common Purpose
• Possession Of Prohibited Firearm

Makhalima and Another v S (A65/2016)

Makhalima and Another v S (A65/2016) [2020] ZAGPJHC 192 (29 May 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A65/2016

Judges

S C Mia, U Bhoola

The court found that the identification of the appellants was reliable and corroborated by independent witnesses, namely the tracker agents, who confirmed the presence and actions of the appellants at the scene. The complainant had sufficient opportunity to observe Mr Makhalima, and his identification was supported by the tracker agents' testimony regarding the appellants' dreadlocks and conduct. The trial court exercised the necessary caution in evaluating single witness evidence and found no misdirection in its approach. The appellants' version was riddled with inconsistencies and contradic…

Source excerpt

• Identification Evidence
• Minimum Sentencing
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Possession Of Prohibited Firearm
• Single Witness Testimony

Dladla v S (AR203/16)

Dladla v S (AR203/16) [2016] ZAKZPHC 74 (25 August 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR203/16

Judges

Mbatha, Vahed

The High Court reduced a 15-year sentence for unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm and ammunition, finding mitigating personal circumstances were not properly weighed.

• Firearms Control Act
• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Possession Of Prohibited Firearm
• Sentencing Discretion
• Crime-firearms

Nkwanyana and Others v S (AR765/14)

Nkwanyana and Others v S (AR765/14) [2016] ZAKZPHC 54 (21 June 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR765/14

Judges

Mbatha, Hemraj

The court found that the identification evidence against appellant 1 was unreliable and improperly admitted, as the complainant had seen him in custody before making her statement and no identification parade was held. The statements made by appellant 1 while in police custody were inadmissible, as he was not advised of his constitutional rights. The Uzzi firearm found in appellant 1's possession was defective and incapable of firing ammunition, thus not qualifying as a firearm under the law. The evidence against appellant 2 for possession of a prohibited firearm was credible and supported by…

Source excerpt

• Identification Evidence
• Admissibility Of Statements
• Attempted Murder
• Possession Of Prohibited Firearm
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances

S v Siyeka (SS11/2014)

S v Siyeka (SS11/2014) [2015] ZAWCHC 208 (1 December 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

SS11/2014

Judge

Boqwana

Sentencing judgment in a cash-in-transit robbery case. The court found substantial and compelling circumstances and imposed an effective 20-year prison term.

• Sentencing Principles
• Prescribed Minimum Sentences
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Murder
• Attempted Robbery
• Possession Of Prohibited Firearm