South Africa Case Law

Adane v Jaskolka and Others (006387/2024)

Adane v Jaskolka and Others (006387/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 862 (12 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

006387/2024

Judges

MDALANA-MAYISELA, DOSIO

The High Court found that the applicant was not afforded a fair trial as required by section 35(3) of the Constitution and relevant statutory provisions. The absence of an Amharic interpreter meant the applicant could not understand the proceedings or the charge against him. The Magistrate's Court failed to confirm the applicant's understanding of the plea and the implications of pleading guilty, despite the seriousness of the charge and the sentence imposed. The legal representative was not conversant in Amharic, and the interpreter present was unable to facilitate effective communication. T…

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Language Rights In Criminal Procedure
• Interpretation Services
• Section 112 Plea
• Immigration Offences

S v Meso (REV 113/2023)

S v Meso (REV 113/2023) [2023] ZALMPPHC 95 (11 October 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

REV 113/2023

Judges

Kganyago, Pillay

The High Court confirmed theft convictions but set aside a consolidation order made after guilty pleas, remitting the matter for separate sentencing on each charge.

• Joinder Of Charges
• Irregularity In Procedure
• Section 112 Plea
• Consolidation For Sentencing
• Joinder-of-charges
• Criminal-review

S v Ncamane (R153-2019)

S v Ncamane (R153-2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 220 (28 November 2019)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R153/2019

Judges

Opperman, J, Jordaan, J

On special review, the Free State High Court confirmed a conviction and suspended sentence for making a false statement in an affidavit-related declaration.

• False Statement In Affidavit
• Statutory Perjury
• Section 112 Plea
• Review Proceedings
• Criminal-law
• False-statement-in-affidavit

Kilo v S (369/2019)

Kilo v S (369/2019) [2019] ZAECMHC 74 (1 November 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

369/2019

Judges

M Gwala, RWN Brooks

On automatic review, the High Court set aside a guilty plea conviction because the accused pleaded to a different date and offence than the charge sheet.

• Contravention Of Protection Order
• Irregularity In Criminal Procedure
• Automatic Review
• Section 112 Plea
• Firearms Control Act
• Automatic-review

Jacobs v S (A365/18)

Jacobs v S (A365/18) [2019] ZAWCHC 4 (11 February 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A365/18

Judges

Henney, Nuku

The magistrate misdirected himself by relying on facts presented during mitigation of sentence that contradicted the factual matrix in the section 112(2) plea statement, which had been accepted by the prosecution. The sentencing should have been based solely on the facts admitted in the plea. The proper procedure, if contradictions arise, is for the prosecutor or court to enter a plea of not guilty under section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Despite the misdirection, the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's prior conviction warranted a custodial sentence, but the sentence impos…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Principles
• Section 112 Plea
• Magistrates Court Procedure
• Aggravating And Mitigating Factors

S v Lepuru and Others (A394/15)

S v Lepuru and Others (A394/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 572 (11 June 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A394/15

Judges

E Jordaan, A J Bam

High Court review of speeding convictions found procedural defects in sentence and licence inquiry, and remitted the matters for proper sentencing and section 35(3) inquiry.

• Summary Trial Procedure
• Speeding Offences
• Drivers Licence Suspension
• Constitutional Rights
• Section 112 Plea
• Sentencing Review

S v Mosoeu (183/2014)

S v Mosoeu (183/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 167 (9 October 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

183/2014

Judges

A.F. Jordaan, M.H. Rampai

The court found that the accused's plea explanation covered the elements of housebreaking with intent to steal, but not theft, as nothing was stolen. The conviction for theft was therefore incorrect and had to be amended. The sentence was appropriate except for the reference to theft, which was also amended. The conviction and sentence were set aside and substituted with a conviction for housebreaking with intent to steal and a corresponding sentence.

Source excerpt

• Housebreaking
• Intent To Steal
• Section 112 Plea
• Amendment Of Conviction
• Sentence Review

S v Jwele (118/2014)

S v Jwele (118/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 84 (13 June 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

118/2014

Judges

Rampai, Daffue

On special review, the High Court held that a sentence of direct imprisonment imposed after a guilty plea under section 112(1)(a) was irregular. The conviction stood, but sentence was set aside.

• Illegal Foreigner
• Summary Trial Procedure
• Sentencing Irregularity
• Section 112 Plea
• Option Of Fine
• Section-112-plea

Petswa v S (A233/2012)

Petswa v S (A233/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 213 (17 August 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A233/2012

Judges

Nyman, Yekiso

Appeal against sentence upheld after the court found a material misdirection in treating a Section 112(2) plea as contradicted by later evidence.

• Sentencing Discretion
• Mitigating Factors
• Remorse
• Section 112 Plea
• Attempted Murder
• Defeating Administration Of Justice

Swart and Another v S (A470/2011)

Swart and Another v S (A470/2011) [2012] ZAGPJHC 290 (30 April 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A470/2011

Judges

T P Mudau, B Spilg

The High Court upheld a theft conviction and reduced an 87-month effective sentence to 5 years’ imprisonment for two appellants who abused positions of trust.

• Theft
• Sentencing Discretion
• Section 112 Plea
• White Collar Crime
• Sentencing-discretion
• Guilty-plea