South Africa Case Law

S v M.P.M (A43/2018)

S v M.P.M (A43/2018) [2021] ZALMPPHC 47 (18 August 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

A43/2018

Judges

Kganyago, Muller

The court found that the appellant admitted the age of the complainant in his section 112(2) statement and that the birth certificate was submitted and unchallenged, satisfying the requirement for proof of age. The appellant was not a first offender, having a previous conviction for rape of a close relative, and committed the current offence while on trial for another rape. The trial court properly considered both aggravating and mitigating factors and correctly concluded that there were no substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of l…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Admission Of Facts
• Proof Of Age
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances

Motsoko v S (A57/2016)

Motsoko v S (A57/2016) [2019] ZALMPPHC 18 (29 April 2019)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

A57/2016

Judges

MF. Kganyago, MV Semenya

The High Court upheld a rape conviction based on a guilty plea, but set aside life imprisonment because the State failed to prove the complainant’s age.

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Proof Of Age
• Section 112 Statement
• Prescribed Sentences
• Minimum-sentencing

Lubando v S (347/2015)

Lubando v S (347/2015) [2016] ZASCA 4; 2016 (2) SACR 160 (SCA) (1 March 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

347/2015

Judges

Maya, Swain, Dambuza

The Supreme Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal in a rape case, finding possible errors in reliance on a J88 report, lack of corroboration, and proof of the complainant’s age.

• Rape
• Corroboration Of Child Witness
• Minimum Sentence
• Proof Of Age
• Medical Evidence
• Leave To Appeal

Johannes v S (A14/14)

Johannes v S (A14/14) [2014] ZAWCHC 174 (24 November 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A14/14

Judges

M.I. Samela, V. Saldanha, T. Ndita

The High Court set aside a life sentence for rape after finding the complainant’s age was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and imposed 15 years instead.

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Proof Of Age
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Sentencing Misdirection
• Rape-sentencing

Mpedi and Others v Swanevelder and Another (421/02)

Mpedi and Others v Swanevelder and Another (421/02) [2003] ZASCA 131; 2004 (4) SA 344 (SCA) (28 November 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

421/02

Judges

MPATI, STREICHER, NAVSA, HEHER, MOTATA

The appeal concerned eviction under ESTA after dismissal of a farm worker and whether his spouse and children could remain.

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Eviction Procedure
• Right Of Residence
• Fundamental Breach
• Proof Of Age
• Extension-of-security-of-tenure-act

S v Mbelo (K/S 66 /200)

S v Mbelo (K/S 66 /200) [2001] ZANCHC 1; 2003 (1) SACR 84 (NC) (26 February 2001)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

K/S 66 /200

Judge

Majiedt R

The court held that the committal for sentence to the High Court was regular under section 52(1)(a) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Although hearsay evidence and baptismal certificates alone are insufficient proof of age, the accused was legally represented and formal admissions regarding the ages of both the complainant and the accused were made by his attorney, confirmed by the accused, and accepted by the magistrate. Such admissions are binding and constitute sufficient proof unless challenged on grounds of improper instruction or bona fide mistake, which was not the case here. The cour…

Source excerpt

• Rape Of Minor
• Admissions By Legal Representative
• Proof Of Age
• Minimum Sentences
• Jurisdiction Of Regional Court