South Africa Case Law

S v Prinsloo (CC10/2024)

S v Prinsloo (CC10/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 275 (17 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC10/2024

Judge

Munzhelele

The court found that the accused acted with premeditation in the murders of his wife and stepdaughter. The evidence established that the accused expressed his intent to kill the victims prior to the incident, retrieved a loaded firearm from another room, and deliberately targeted both victims in accordance with his earlier threats. The accused's actions were systematic and aligned with his stated intentions, negating any claim of spontaneous provocation or loss of control. The court rejected the defense's version as lacking credibility, noting that the accused's conduct—pursuing his wife afte…

Source excerpt

• Premeditated Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Provocation
• Subjective Intent
• Criminal Liability

L.N v S (CA&R: 22/2024)

L.N v S (CA&R: 22/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 85 (12 August 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA&R: 22/2024

Judges

Bands, M.W. Nobatana

Appeal against sentence for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm dismissed; 18 months’ direct imprisonment was confirmed.

• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Sentencing Principles
• Mitigation Of Sentence
• Prior Convictions
• Constitutional Rights Of Children
• Criminal-law

Mudlay v S (AR 356/2020)

Mudlay v S (AR 356/2020) [2024] ZAKZPHC 45 (14 June 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 356/2020

Judges

Mossop, Nicholson

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for assault after the appellant admitted striking his wife and failed to establish private defence.

• Assault With Intent To Commit Grievous Bodily Harm
• Private Defence
• Provocation
• Sentencing Principles
• Assault
• Private-defence

Mkwebula v S (A188/2023)

Mkwebula v S (A188/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 376 (15 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A188/2023

Judges

S.A.M. Baqwa, A.J. Le Grange

The court found that while the initial act of stabbing the deceased could be justified as self-defence, the subsequent five stab wounds inflicted after the deceased was no longer a threat constituted excessive force and aggression. The appellant admitted awareness of the possible fatal consequences of his actions. The court held that there were no substantial and compelling circumstances to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence. The number of stab wounds was aggravating, and the appellant's actions after the threat had ceased could not be regarded as an excusable human reacti…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Discretion
• Minimum Sentences
• Private Defence
• Provocation
• Mitigating Factors

Brown v S (CA & R 2/21)

Brown v S (CA & R 2/21) [2022] ZANCHC 15; 2022 (2) SACR 194 (NCK) (18 March 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA & R 2/21

Judges

Mamosebo, Eillert

The High Court upheld sentence interference in part, finding a globular six-year sentence incompetent for the firearm count and replacing it with separate concurrent sentences.

• Sentencing Discretion
• Attempted Murder
• Firearms Control Act
• Globular Sentence
• Maximum Penalty
• Provocation

S v Khomo (CCD50/2020)

S v Khomo (CCD50/2020) [2020] ZAKZPHC 60 (16 October 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

CCD50/2020

Judge

Bezuidenhout

After a guilty plea for murder, the High Court imposed 20 years’ imprisonment, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances to depart below the prescribed minimum.

• Minimum Sentencing
• Murder
• Mitigation And Aggravation
• Remorse
• Provocation
• Violence Against Women

Setlhako v S (A240/2018)

Setlhako v S (A240/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 156 (19 September 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A240/2018

Judges

Mhlambi, Molitsoane

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly applied the principles governing minimum sentencing. The appellant's personal circumstances, including his age, employment, family responsibilities, and previous conviction, were considered but did not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances justifying deviation from the prescribed sentence. The evidence showed that both the appellant and the deceased belonged to rival gangs and had consumed alcohol, but there was no credible evidence of provocation. The appellant's own testimony indicated he was the aggressor and that the stabb…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Provocation
• Appeal Against Sentence

Director of Public Prosecutions Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg v Ramolefi (705/2018)

Director of Public Prosecutions Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg v Ramolefi (705/2018) [2019] ZASCA 90 (3 June 2019)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

705/2018

Judges

Majiedt, Van Der Merwe, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the State's appeal against a sentence imposed by the high court sitting as a court of appeal. The statutory framework, specifically section 316B(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, restricts the State's right of appeal to sentences imposed by a superior court sitting as a court of first instance. Previous decisions, including Olivier and Kock, confirm this limitation and are supported by constitutional and policy considerations. The attempt to invoke section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Act was rejected, as the high court's f…

Source excerpt

• State Right Of Appeal
• Sentence Appeal Jurisdiction
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Provocation
• Diminished Responsibility

Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality v Independent Municipal & Allied Trade Union (IMATU) obo Johannes Tshabalala and Others (PA8/2017)

Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality v Independent Municipal & Allied Trade Union (IMATU) obo Johannes Tshabalala and Others (PA8/2017) [2018] ZALAC 60; [2019] 3 BLLR 239 (LAC); (2019) 40 ILJ 1021 (LAC) (3 December 2018)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

PA8/2017

Judges

Phatshoane, Sutherland, Kathree-Setiloane

The Labour Appeal Court found that the evidence overwhelmingly established that Mr Tshabalala and Mr Ndleleni engaged in a fight far beyond mere horseplay, in the presence of subordinates. The employee's actions, including breaking open a padlock and disregarding instructions, demonstrated aggression and could not be justified as provocation or self-defence. The commissioner erred in excusing the misconduct on these grounds and failed to properly assess the credibility and probabilities of the employee's version. The longstanding feud and disruptive effect on operations rendered the employmen…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Disciplinary Code
• Self Defence In Workplace
• Provocation
• Reinstatement
• Substantive Fairness

Grobbelaar v P.K (4962/2017)

Grobbelaar v P.K (4962/2017) [2018] ZAECGHC 73 (21 August 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

4962/2017

Judge

M.J. Lowe

Leave to appeal was dismissed in a dog-bite delict case involving actio de pauperie, provocation, and a minor child’s presence on a boundary wall.

• Actio De Pauperie
• Doli Incapax
• Provocation By Victim
• Lawful Presence
• Trespass By Minor
• Actio-de-pauperie