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
S v Rooy (Review) (CA & R 15/2025) [2025] ZAECMKHC 10 (11 February 2025)
The High Court set aside a guilty conviction and sentence after finding that the accused’s section 112(2) statement did not admit all elements of the Domestic Violence Act charge.
Ntuli v S (A307/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1064 (11 October 2024)
The court held that the failure of the trial court to enquire about the use of assessors did not vitiate the proceedings, as the handing in of a section 112(2) statement does not amount to the leading of evidence as contemplated by section 93ter(1) of the Magistrates Court Act. The appellant was legally represented, and the factual matrix was accepted by the State without contradiction. The trial court properly considered the appellant's personal circumstances, the context of the offence, and the absence of aggravating evidence. The deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence was justified…
Source excerpt
Konjo v S (CA 31/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 238 (16 September 2024)
The section 112 statement admitted the essential elements of murder, specifically unlawful and intentional killing with direct intent (dolus directus), but did not address or admit planning or premeditation. The trial court erred by convicting the appellant of planned or premeditated murder and applying the minimum sentencing provisions under section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The facts did not exclude the reasonable inference that the murder was committed in a fit of rage rather than as a result of planning or premeditation. Consequently, the conviction and sentence must be sub…
Source excerpt
S v Mabita (CC66/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 739 (1 August 2024)
The High Court convicted Chris Mabita of murder after accepting his Section 112(2) guilty plea as covering all elements of the offence.
Masango v S (A25/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 571 (31 May 2024)
The High Court set aside a murder conviction because the guilty-plea statement did not admit the burning alleged in the charge sheet.
S v Nzanza (R04/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 98 (15 March 2023)
The court found that the accused's section 112(2) statement did not admit the essential element of intention to permanently deprive the owner of the cell phone. The accused explained he took the phone for safekeeping and returned it the next day, which raised a defence to the charge of theft. The presiding magistrate misdirected himself by convicting the accused on a plea statement that did not establish all elements of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act requires the court to record a plea of not guilty and allow the prosecuti…
Source excerpt
T.T v S (A180/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 359 (27 May 2021)
The court found that the appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for changing his plea from guilty to not guilty under section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The timing and reasons advanced for the application were unconvincing and did not meet the threshold required by law. The trial court had properly followed the procedures under section 112(2), and the appellant's admissions in his statement were clear and unequivocal. Regarding sentence, the court held that no substantial and compelling circumstances existed to justify deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of li…
Source excerpt
Leeuw v S (R81/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 132 (13 May 2021)
On special review, the High Court set aside a conviction under section 36 of the General Laws Amendment Act because the section 112(2) plea lacked a factual basis.
S v Makuyana (R09/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 16 (13 February 2020)
The court held that, although the section 112(2) statement repeated much of the charge sheet's wording, the accused also made additional admissions, including having no defence and being an illegal foreigner. These admissions demonstrated an understanding of the offences and covered the essential elements required for conviction. The court found that the requirements of section 112(2) were met in this case, and the convictions and sentences were therefore confirmed. The court emphasized that magistrates should ensure that section 112(2) statements contain sufficient factual detail, but in thi…
Source excerpt
S v Makuyana (R09/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 25 (13 February 2020)
The court found that, although the accused's section 112(2) statement repeated much of the charge sheet's wording, it also included admissions that he trespassed unlawfully and without permission and that he was an illegal foreigner with no defence to the charges. These additional admissions demonstrated that the accused understood the nature of the offences and admitted all essential elements. The court held that, in line with the principle in S v Mbuyisa, the use of charge sheet language does not automatically invalidate a guilty plea if the facts admitted are sufficient. The convictions an…
Source excerpt
Explore more
