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 Nkosi and Another (CC33/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 61 (30 June 2025)
High Court criminal judgment on robbery, murder and attempted murder. The court admitted a disputed statement, accepted eyewitness and cell-data evidence, and convicted both accused on the main counts.
S v Mthethwa and Others (CC62/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 316 (30 March 2025)
The Court found that the case against accused 2 was proved beyond reasonable doubt through circumstantial evidence, corroborated identification, and the doctrine of recent possession. Accused 2 was linked to the crimes by his possession of the stolen Land Rover, cell phone data tracking his movements, and the withdrawal of funds from the deceased's accounts. The evidence excluded any reasonable inference other than his guilt. The identification by Mr Skhosana, though as a single witness, was corroborated by other evidence and the movements of the relevant cell phone. The version of accused 2…
Source excerpt
Masango and Another v S (203/2022) [2024] ZASCA 98 (14 June 2024)
The SCA dismissed leave to appeal applications in a robbery case, holding that the appellants showed no reasonable prospects of success on conviction or sentence.
S v Gcabashe and Another (CCD 43/2022) [2023] ZAKZDHC 79 (1 August 2023)
The court found that the State had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Gcabashe was guilty of the premeditated murder of the deceased, unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, and unlawful possession of a motor vehicle. The evidence of the State's witnesses, particularly Sergeant Ngidi and Mr Dlamini, was accepted as credible and corroborated by ballistic and circumstantial evidence. The accused's version was rejected as improbable and contrived. The doctrine of common purpose was found inapplicable to accused 2, who was discharged on all counts. The court held that inferential reas…
Source excerpt
Nhantumbo v S (A21 / 2023) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 26 (10 May 2023)
High Court appeal against refusal of bail dismissed. The court found a strong case, weak local ties, and a real risk that the appellant would evade trial.
Dlamini v S (A14/2021;SHG117/18) [2022] ZAMPMHC 11 (20 September 2022)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against convictions for robbery with aggravating circumstances and confirmed the 15-year sentences on each count.
S v Mnweba and Another (SS 100/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 740 (16 September 2022)
The court found that the State proved beyond reasonable doubt that both accused were the perpetrators of the housebreaking, robbery, and sexual offences at the deceased's house. The evidence of the ring and laptop, corroborated by witness testimony and admissions, established the identity of accused 1. The doctrine of recent possession applied to the laptop found in accused 1's shack. The confessions made to Y and T were accepted as voluntary and credible. However, the court found that the requirements for common purpose in relation to the murder charge against accused 1 were not met, as ther…
Source excerpt
Mahlangu and Another v S (A13 /2020) [2021] ZAMPMHC 24 (23 September 2021)
The court found that the confession made by the second appellant to the Investigating Officer, a Warrant Officer, was inadmissible as he was not a commissioned officer and no trial-within-a-trial was held to determine voluntariness. The identification of the cell phone recovered from the second appellant was not sufficiently reliable, as the complainant failed to provide unique identifiers and his recollection was inconsistent. The second appellant provided a reasonable explanation for possession of the cell phone, negating the doctrine of recent possession. The dock identification of the fir…
Source excerpt
Mothate v S (A965/2014) [2021] ZAGPPHC 319 (18 May 2021)
The court found that the trial court properly evaluated the complainant's evidence as a single witness, applying the cautionary rule and common sense. The identification parade was conducted fairly, and the absence of legal representation did not prejudice the appellant. The evidence of recent possession of the complainant's phone and the positive identification corroborated the complainant's testimony. The appellant's version was inconsistent and failed to create reasonable doubt. The trial court correctly explained the seriousness of the charges and the consequences to the appellant. Senten…
Source excerpt
Ramaloko and Others v S (A60/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 686 (3 March 2021)
The High Court upheld convictions for housebreaking, robbery and murder, admitted warning statements, and reduced an Immigration Act sentence that exceeded the statute.
Explore more
