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
Mpanza v S (AR52/23) [2025] ZAKZPHC 28 (24 March 2025)
The High Court confirmed convictions for reckless driving and related offences, but set aside the sentences for vagueness and misdirection, remitting sentencing to another magistrate.
Oberholzer v Ekurrhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another (57431/17) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1273 (29 November 2024)
The High Court held that the plaintiff’s arrest for offences committed in the officer’s presence was lawful, and dismissed the claim with punitive costs.
Mofokeng v S (A40/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 351 (7 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed an appeal against convictions for corruption and reckless driving, confirming the trial court’s credibility findings and the lawfulness of the trap evidence.
S v Siyaya (Sentence) (03/2024) [2024] ZAKZDHC 28; 2024 (2) SACR 282 (KZD) (16 May 2024)
The court found that the accused's conduct constituted an aggravated and wilful disregard for the safety of other road users, resulting in the deaths of eighteen children and two young adults. Although the accused did not have direct intent to kill, his actions displayed a high degree of moral blameworthiness and culpability, far exceeding ordinary recklessness. The court accepted that substantial and compelling circumstances existed, including the absence of direct intent, the accused's lack of prior convictions, and his time spent in custody, justifying deviation from the prescribed minimum…
Source excerpt
S v Mabena and Others (CC2/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1189 (19 September 2023)
High Court criminal conviction arising from a planned cash-in-transit robbery, a police shootout, and firearms-related offences.
Majeng v S (47/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 41 (28 February 2023)
The court found that the accused's plea and admissions did not unequivocally support a conviction for reckless driving, as required by law. The magistrate failed to distinguish between reckless and negligent driving, which are separate offences, and did not consider the statutory factors or lead evidence regarding licence suspension. The facts admitted by the accused supported a conviction for negligent driving, not reckless driving. The sentence imposed for reckless driving was set aside, and the court imposed a fine of R3500 for negligent driving, deeming the previously paid fine as satisfa…
Source excerpt
S v Kotze; S v Ntulo (371/2022;363/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 15; 2023 (1) SACR 426 (WCC) (25 January 2023)
High Court review of two magistrates’ court plea records set aside Kotze’s conviction and sentence and amended Ntulo’s conviction to negligent driving.
Ramahala v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (75039/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 965 (12 December 2022)
The High Court held that Metro Police were justified in using force to stop and arrest an intoxicated driver who repeatedly ignored lawful instructions.
Tsobo v S (CA&R175/2019) [2021] ZAECGHC 58 (8 June 2021)
The appeal succeeded because the State failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence did not establish that the appellant was the driver of the caterpillar, nor did it substantiate the grounds of reckless or negligent driving. The trial court relied on speculative reasoning and failed to properly evaluate the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence. The section 174 application for discharge should have been granted, as there was no evidence linking the appellant to the offence. The State's concession was properly made, and the convictions and sentences were s…
Source excerpt
S v Mogale and Others (CC76/2018; 10/2/11/1-L41/18) [2020] ZALMPPHC 70 (5 August 2020)
The court found that all accused were parties to a conspiracy to commit robbery with aggravating circumstances, based on their coordinated actions, possession of firearms, and use of a stolen vehicle. The evidence established that the accused acted in concert, and the firearms were brought to facilitate violence in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. The confession by accused 3 was ruled admissible and reliable, corroborated by objective facts and the conduct of the accused. The doctrine of common purpose applied to the murder and attempted murder charges, as the accused foresaw and accep…
Source excerpt
Explore more
