South Africa Case Law

Moepya and Others v S (Appeal) (A289/2022)

Moepya and Others v S (Appeal) (A289/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 605 (6 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A289/2022

Judges

PD Phahlane, Francis-Subbiah

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly evaluated the totality of the evidence, including circumstantial and forensic evidence, and properly applied the relevant legal principles. The appellants' failure to testify in the face of compelling evidence justified an adverse inference. The presumption of possession under section 117(2) of the Firearms Control Act was correctly applied to the first appellant, who controlled the premises. The evidence supported joint possession and common purpose among the appellants. The trial court considered all relevant sentencing factors, includin…

Source excerpt

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Firearms Control Act
• Joint Possession
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Sentencing Principles
• Right To Silence

Zwane v S (A 40/2020)

Zwane v S (A 40/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 646 (12 August 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A 40/2020

Judges

Matsemela, Dlamini

The High Court dismissed an appeal against robbery conviction and a 15-year sentence, finding the identification evidence and corroboration sufficient.

• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Prescribed Minimum Sentences
• Identity Of Accused
• Single Witness Evidence
• Right To Silence
• Sentencing Principles

Madisha v S (A403/2018)

Madisha v S (A403/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 222 (17 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A403/2018

Judges

Sardiwalla, Millar

The appeal was upheld because the conviction of the appellant was based solely on the uncorroborated and unreliable evidence of a co-accused, which was not supported by any documentary or independent evidence. The trial court failed to apply the cautionary rule properly, accepting the co-accused's version uncritically and disregarding contradictory evidence. The documentary evidence showed that the appellant did not sign any of the withdrawal documents and was not present at the bank as alleged. The only evidence implicating the appellant was the attempt by Thamaga to incriminate him, which w…

Source excerpt

• Accomplice Evidence
• Cautionary Rule
• Right To Silence
• Burden Of Proof
• Fraud
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act

Minister of Police v Foutie and Another (CA59/2020)

Minister of Police v Foutie and Another (CA59/2020) [2021] ZAECGHC 26 (9 March 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA59/2020

Judges

A Govindjee, E Revelas

Appeal court overturned damages for unlawful arrest and detention, holding the arrest was justified under section 40(1)(h) after drugs were found. Costs followed the result.

• Unlawful Arrest And Detention
• Damages Quantification
• Search And Seizure
• Right To Silence
• Condonation
• Costs Award

Ramaloko and Others v S (A60/2019)

Ramaloko and Others v S (A60/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 686 (3 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A60/2019

Judges

M.J Mosopa, M.B Mabunda

The High Court upheld convictions for housebreaking, robbery and murder, admitted warning statements, and reduced an Immigration Act sentence that exceeded the statute.

• Admissibility Of Statements
• Right To Silence
• Minimum Sentencing
• Recent Possession
• Fair Trial Rights
• Criminal-appeal

Ramaloko and Others v S (A60/2019)

Ramaloko and Others v S (A60/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 87 (3 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A60/2019

Judges

Mosopa, Mabunda

The High Court dismissed most of the appellants’ criminal appeal, upheld the admission of warning statements, and corrected only the unlawful Immigration Act sentence.

• Admissibility Of Warning Statements
• Minimum Sentencing
• Doctrine Of Recent Possession
• Right To Silence
• Fair Trial Rights
• Admissibility-of-warning-statements

Sonnenberg v S (A195/2019)

Sonnenberg v S (A195/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 173 (29 October 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A195/2019

Judges

Reinders, Opperman, Majosi

Appeal dismissed: the High Court upheld three murder convictions and life sentences, finding the circumstantial evidence sufficient and the sentence justified.

• Circumstantial Evidence
• Minimum Sentences
• Premeditated Murder
• Right To Silence
• Sentencing Principles
• Circumstantial-evidence

Bushiri v Minister of home Affairs and Others (43470/2020)

Bushiri v Minister of home Affairs and Others (43470/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 585 (21 October 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

43470/2020

Judge

Neukircher

The court found that the applicant and his wife, as accused persons, are entitled to constitutional protection against self-incrimination and the right to silence. Compelling them to make representations to the Department of Home Affairs prior to pleading in their criminal trial would violate these rights, as such representations could be used against them in the pending criminal proceedings. The balance of convenience favours the applicant, as withdrawal of their permanent residence permits could result in their bail being revoked and render them illegal foreigners, causing irreparable harm.…

Source excerpt

• Right To Silence
• Self Incrimination
• Interim Interdict
• Immigration Permits
• Fair Trial Rights

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) obo Nganezi and Others v Dunlop Mixing and Technical Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (DA16/2016)

National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) obo Nganezi and Others v Dunlop Mixing and Technical Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (DA16/2016) [2018] ZALAC 19; [2018] 10 BLLR 961 (LAC); (2018) 39 ILJ 2226 (LAC); 2018 (6) SA 240 (LAC) (17 July 2018)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

DA16/2016

Judges

Sutherland JA, Coppin JA, Savage AJA

Labour Appeal Court upheld dismissals for derivative misconduct after a violent strike, finding the employees’ silence and inferred knowledge justified dismissal.

• Derivative Misconduct
• Duty Of Good Faith
• Strike Related Misconduct
• Collective Dismissal
• Right To Silence
• Procedural Fairness

Madlophe v S (A848/16)

Madlophe v S (A848/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 344 (2 March 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A848/16

Judges

S Chesiwe, N P Mngqibisa-Thusi

The High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction for housebreaking with intent to rape and rape, finding the complainant's identification reliable.

• Identification Evidence
• Rape
• Housebreaking
• Burden Of Proof
• Right To Silence
• Criminal-law