South Africa Case Law

S v Zaanazo (HC 05/2023)

S v Zaanazo (HC 05/2023) [2023] ZANWHC 221 (24 November 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC 05/2023

Judges

A H Petersen, A Reddy

The court found that the conviction of attempted murder was a gross irregularity, as it is not a competent verdict on a charge of robbery under section 260 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence did not prove robbery with aggravating circumstances but did establish assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm. The discretion to appoint assessors in robbery matters is not mandatory, and the misunderstanding by the magistrate and defence was based on a statutory amendment that was never enacted. The accused's previous convictions, seriousness of the offence, and time spent in pretrial de…

Source excerpt

• Competent Verdicts
• Gross Irregularity
• Sentencing Principles
• Firearms Control
• Review Powers
• Assessors Discretion

S v Kali and Others (R19/2023; R20/2023; R21/2023; R22/2023; R23/2023; R24/2023; R25/2023; R26/2023)

S v Kali and Others (R19/2023; R20/2023; R21/2023; R22/2023; R23/2023; R24/2023; R25/2023; R26/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 268 (10 July 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R19/2023; R20/2023; R21/2023; R22/2023; R23/2023; R24/2023; R25/2023; R26/2023

Judges

Opperman, Cronjé

High Court review of eight Immigration Act sentences held the magistrate overemphasized deterrence and imposed grossly excessive terms.

• Sentencing Principles
• Immigration Act Offences
• Judicial Discretion
• Proportionality Of Sentence
• Review Powers
• Mitigating And Aggravating Factors

S v Muridzo; S v Ramafikeng (325/2022;324/2022)

S v Muridzo; S v Ramafikeng (325/2022;324/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 32 (20 February 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

325/2022;324/2022

Judges

Le Grange, Henney

The sentences imposed by the magistrate in both cases—fines with alternative imprisonment, without a direct term of imprisonment—were incompetent and not in accordance with section 17(e) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act. The law requires that a sentence for dealing in drugs must include a term of imprisonment, which may be wholly or partially suspended, and may be coupled with a fine. The review court is obliged to set aside the incompetent sentences and replace them with sentences that comply with the statutory requirements, even if this results in a more onerous sentence for the accuse…

Source excerpt

• Drug Sentencing
• Drugs And Drug Trafficking Act
• Competent Sentence
• Review Powers
• Imprisonment And Fine

Mainga v S (53/2019)

Mainga v S (53/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 523; 2020 (1) SACR 666 (GJ) (10 December 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

53/2019

Judges

L R Adams, P Meyer

The High Court found that the Regional Magistrate had intended to impose an effective sentence of forty years direct imprisonment, but an error in the concurrency order resulted in a warrant of detention reflecting forty five years. The court held that the Regional Magistrate was functus officio and could not correct the sentence herself. The High Court, exercising its review powers under section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, set aside the erroneous concurrency order and substituted it with a corrected order to ensure the effective sentence was forty years, as originally intended. The…

Source excerpt

• Concurrent Sentences
• Review Powers
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Effective Sentence
• Functus Officio

S v Ndlovu (70/2351/18)

S v Ndlovu (70/2351/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 495 (9 December 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

70/2351/18

Judges

T P Mudau, I Opperman

The court found that although the charge sheet for count two did not specify subsection (a) of section 49(1) of the Immigration Act, the accused's plea and admissions clearly established the elements of section 49(1)(a). The omission was not fatal and did not result in a miscarriage of justice. Regarding sentencing, the court held that while the Criminal Procedure Act does not expressly authorise taking counts together for sentence, it is not prohibited and may be done in exceptional cases where the offences are closely connected. The sentence imposed—12 months' direct imprisonment—was compet…

Source excerpt

• Criminal Procedure Act
• Immigration Act Offences
• Sentencing Principles
• Review Powers

S v Amsterdam (A520/17)

S v Amsterdam (A520/17) [2017] ZAGPPHC 861 (12 October 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A520/17

Judges

H.J Fabricius, A.J Bam

On special review, the High Court set aside a suspended theft sentence imposed under section 112(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act and sent the matter back for proper sentencing.

• Criminal Procedure Act
• Improper Sentence
• Review Powers
• Theft
• Criminal-procedure-act
• Special-review

Zulu v S (8/2017)

Zulu v S (8/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1250 (11 October 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

8/2017

Judges

L M Molopa-Sethosa, P M Mabuse, C J Collis

The appeal court found that the trial court failed to properly consider the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed on the appellant, resulting in an effective term of 30 years' imprisonment, which is disproportionate and shockingly harsh given the circumstances. The offences of robbery with aggravating circumstances were inextricably linked in terms of locality, time, and intent, justifying an order that the sentences on counts 1 and 2 run concurrently in part. The appellant's time spent in custody awaiting trial and his personal circumstances were also relevant factors that should have b…

Source excerpt

• Minimum Sentences Act
• Concurrent Sentences
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Sentencing Discretion
• Review Powers
• Effective Term Of Imprisonment

Mogosi and Another v S (A257/2016)

Mogosi and Another v S (A257/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 17 (16 February 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A257/2016

Judges

FHD Van Oosten, EJ Francis

High Court appeal against sentence in a robbery case. Convictions and sentences for unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition were set aside; robbery conviction was amended and upheld.

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Unlawful Possession Of Firearm
• Unlawful Possession Of Ammunition
• Minimum Sentencing
• Review Powers
• Criminal-law

S v Khumalo (A804/16)

S v Khumalo (A804/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1005 (24 November 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A804/16

Judges

NV Khumalo, DS Molefe

On special review, the High Court confirmed a conviction and sentence for theft, despite concerns that the magistrate did not properly probe the accused’s ability to pay a fine.

• Sentencing Procedure
• Ability To Pay Fine
• Review Powers
• Fair Trial Rights
• Sentencing-procedure
• Ability-to-pay-fine

S v Matiwane (CU/2115/2011)

S v Matiwane (CU/2115/2011) [2012] ZAWCHC 159; 2013 (1) SACR 507 (WCC) (13 August 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

CU/2115/2011

Judges

Hlophe, Samela

The High Court found that the Magistrate placed excessive emphasis on the accused's previous convictions, failing to properly consider his personal circumstances, including unemployment, dependants, and medical condition. The Magistrate's approach was unduly harsh and lacked the necessary balance between the crime, the criminal, and the interests of society. The principle of Ubuntu and mercy was not adequately applied. The sentence of three years imprisonment for theft of goods valued at R111.60 was disproportionate and constituted a material misdirection. The reviewing court confirmed the co…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Review Powers
• Previous Convictions
• Ubuntu Principle