South Africa Case Law

S v Masilela (CC64/2023)

S v Masilela (CC64/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1041 (25 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC64/2023

Judge

PD Phahlane

The court found that the accused's conduct did not amount to premeditated murder under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, as premeditation was not proven. The accused was convicted under section 51(2), which prescribes a minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment for a first offender. In considering sentence, the court evaluated the accused's personal circumstances, including her history of drug abuse, mental health issues, traumatic experiences, emotional instability, and time spent in custody. The court determined that these cumulative factors constituted substantial and compel…

Source excerpt

• Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Drug Abuse
• Restorative Justice
• Mitigation Of Sentence

Raymond Daniel de Villiers v S (996/2021)

Raymond Daniel de Villiers v S (996/2021) [2023] ZASCA 83; 2023 (2) SACR 221 (SCA) (31 May 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

996/2021

Judges

Zondi, Molemela, Mothle, Nhlangulela, Siwendu

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a compensation order made on appeal and remitted the matter to the regional court for sentencing afresh.

• Compensation Order
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 300
• Sentencing Discretion
• Restorative Justice
• Criminal-procedure-act-section-300
• Compensation-order

Bangi v S (A103 / 2021;SHF / 64/2017)

Bangi v S (A103 / 2021;SHF / 64/2017) [2022] ZAWCHC 220; 2023 (1) SACR 298 (WCC) (2 November 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A103 / 2021

Judges

Fortuin, Wille

Appeal against sentence for human trafficking of a minor for sexual exploitation dismissed; the High Court confirmed the conviction and 12-year sentence.

• Human Trafficking
• Minimum Sentencing
• Mitigating Factors
• Cultural Defence
• Primary Caregiver
• Restorative Justice

S v Jantjies (CC42/20)

S v Jantjies (CC42/20) [2022] ZAWCHC 200 (6 October 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CC42/20

Judge

V C Saldanha

High Court sentencing judgment in a child neglect case: the accused received five years’ imprisonment and was declared unsuitable to work with children.

• Child Abuse And Neglect
• Sentencing Principles
• Restorative Justice
• Children S Act
• Correctional Supervision
• Child-abuse-and-neglect

Benatar v Black Academic Caucus (18821/2020)

Benatar v Black Academic Caucus (18821/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 265 (15 December 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18821/2020

Judge

P.A.L. Gamble

The High Court dismissed a PAIA application by a university professor seeking BAC membership and statement records, holding the request was too vague and amounted to a fishing expedition.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Access To Information
• Rights Of Requesters
• Restorative Justice
• Subsidiarity Principle
• Paia

Sithole v S (AR 362/18)

Sithole v S (AR 362/18) [2021] ZAKZPHC 23 (6 August 2021)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 362/18

Judges

Mogwera, K Pillay

The High Court upheld an appeal against sentence, reducing imprisonment terms for vehicle use without consent and three culpable homicide counts.

• Culpable Homicide
• Sentencing Principles
• Concurrent Sentences
• Mitigation Of Sentence
• Restorative Justice
• Sentencing-appeals

Maxwele v University of Cape Town (18555/2019)

Maxwele v University of Cape Town (18555/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 188 (8 December 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18555/2019

Judge

M J Dolamo

The disciplinary tribunal was not properly constituted after the student assessor withdrew at the outset of the hearing. The university's rules required the tribunal to consist of a Proctor and two assessors for serious breaches, and proceedings must start afresh if both assessors are unavailable. The Proctor misapplied Rule DJP 5.6 by continuing with only one assessor, rendering the proceedings invalid. While the applicant did not expressly request legal representation, the seriousness of the charges and his evident lack of understanding should have prompted the Proctor to advise him to seek…

Source excerpt

• University Disciplinary Procedure
• Procedural Fairness
• Legal Representation
• Composition Of Tribunal
• Expulsion
• Restorative Justice

Centre for Child Law and Others v Media 24 Limited and Others (CCT261/18)

Centre for Child Law and Others v Media 24 Limited and Others (CCT261/18) [2019] ZACC 46; 2020 (3) BCLR 245 (CC); 2020 (1) SACR 469 (CC); 2020 (4) SA 319 (CC) (4 December 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT261/18

Judges

Mogoeng, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Ledwaba, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nicholls, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that section 154(3) unlawfully failed to protect child victims’ identities and should extend beyond age 18, subject to consent or court order.

• Identity Protection Of Children
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Freedom Of Expression Limitation
• Open Justice
• Equality Before The Law
• Restorative Justice

Boshoff v National Director of Prosecutions and Others (5095/2017)

Boshoff v National Director of Prosecutions and Others (5095/2017) [2018] ZAFSHC 51 (8 March 2018)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

5095/2017

Judge

Molemela

The court found that the DPP's instructions did not create a binding agreement to withdraw charges upon apology and completion of a diversion programme. The instructions were conditional and subject to prosecutorial discretion, which could be exercised in light of changing circumstances, including the complainants' subsequent rejection of the apology. The DPP was entitled to reconsider the suitability of diversion and proceed with prosecution, especially given the nature of the offence and its impact on victims and the community. The applicant failed to prove the existence of an enforceable a…

Source excerpt

• Prosecutorial Discretion
• Diversion Programme
• Crimen Iniuria
• Fair Trial Rights
• Restorative Justice

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services v Walus (777/2016)

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services v Walus (777/2016) [2017] ZASCA 99; [2017] 4 All SA 1 (SCA); 2017 (2) SACR 473 (SCA) (18 August 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

777/2016

Judges

Maya, Shongwe, Mbha, Van Der Merwe, Schippers

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Minister's failure to consider the victim impact statement and to furnish it to the respondent constituted a material procedural irregularity under section 6(2)(b) of PAJA. The statutory framework requires that all relevant information, including victim representations and the prisoner's response, be considered in parole decisions. The omission breached mandatory procedural requirements and vitiated the Minister's decision. The Court rejected arguments that the outcome was a foregone conclusion and held that neither party could argue that considerati…

Source excerpt

• Parole Review
• Procedural Irregularity
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Victim Impact Statement
• Restorative Justice
• Judicial Review