South Africa Case Law

S v Mashaba (HC18/2024)

S v Mashaba (HC18/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 210 (12 August 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

HC18/2024

Judges

A Reddy, A H Petersen

The magistrate's order that the sentences run concurrently with any sentence the accused is serving was incompetent because no previous convictions were proved or admitted. The prosecution's failure to provide a SAP69 or prove previous convictions deprived the sentencing court of relevant information, which is undesirable and contrary to best practice. The order regarding unfitness to possess a firearm did not explicitly reference section 103(1) of the Firearms Control Act, but the court corrected this by deeming the accused unfit ex lege under section 103(1), as the offences involved violenc…

Source excerpt

• Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm
• Sentencing Procedure
• Concurrent Sentences
• Firearms Control Act Section 103
• Previous Convictions Proof

S v Mlambo and Others (CC31/2019)

S v Mlambo and Others (CC31/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 340 (8 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC31/2019

Judge

G.T. Avvakoumides

The High Court dismissed a recusal application in a criminal trial, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and treating the alleged irregularity as immaterial.

• Recusal Of Judge
• Apprehension Of Bias
• Irregularity In Proceedings
• Sentencing Procedure
• Recusal-of-judge
• Apprehension-of-bias

Sijila v S (CA & R93/2023)

Sijila v S (CA & R93/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 35 (19 March 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA & R93/2023

Judges

Zilwa, Makaula

The appeal court found that the record of proceedings in the court a quo was incomplete, lacking transcription of the vital portion relating to sentencing, and that the reconstruction was not properly conducted with input from all relevant parties. This inadequacy prevented a proper appraisal of the evidence on sentencing and rendered the proceedings unjust. The court held that the appellant's right to a fair trial and appeal was violated, as the record was insufficient for judicial review. Consequently, the appeal against sentence succeeded, and the sentence was set aside. The matter was rem…

Source excerpt

• Incomplete Record On Appeal
• Reconstruction Of Court Record
• Right To Fair Trial
• Sentencing Procedure

Mtshashu and Another v S (A231/23)

Mtshashu and Another v S (A231/23) [2024] ZAWCHC 29 (2 February 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A231/23

Judges

V C Saldanha, A Cockrell

The High Court upheld the convictions for robbery, murder and firearm offences, but amended sentence after finding the appellants were not properly warned about minimum sentence provisions.

• Minimum Sentence Legislation
• Identification Evidence
• Alibi Defence
• Sentencing Procedure
• Social Impact Reports
• Criminal-law

Vilakasi v S (A55/2023)

Vilakasi v S (A55/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 842 (26 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A55/2023

Judges

M Mabesele, B Mahalelo, D Dosio

The High Court held that leave to appeal against conviction cannot be granted before sentence and referred the criminal matter back for sentencing.

• Leave To Appeal
• Sentencing Procedure
• Wrong Judgment Amendment
• Section 275 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 176 Criminal Procedure Act
• Criminal-appeal

Bekker v S (A343/2021)

Bekker v S (A343/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 374 (7 June 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A343/2021

Judges

Van der Schyff, Mosopa

High Court appeal dismissed against a 10-year sentence for sexual assault. The court held the magistrate did not irregularly elicit previous convictions and found no basis to interfere with sentence.

• Sentencing Procedure
• Previous Convictions
• Sexual Offences Act
• Right Against Self Incrimination
• Criminal-sentencing
• Previous-convictions

S v White (CA&R 08/2021)

S v White (CA&R 08/2021) [2021] ZAECGHC 4 (20 January 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 08/2021

Judges

Bloem, Rugunanan

The accused was under 18 at the time of the offence but over 18 at trial. The Child Justice Act provides that the DPP may, in prescribed circumstances, direct that such persons be dealt with under child justice procedures. The offence was serious (Schedule 3), and none of the circumstances for referral under section 4(2) were present. The DPP did not exercise discretion to invoke child justice procedures. The conviction for sexual assault is sustainable under section 270 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The proceedings were in accordance with justice, and the matter is remitted for sentencing,…

Source excerpt

• Child Justice Act
• Sentencing Procedure
• Sexual Offences
• Competent Verdict
• Preliminary Inquiry

S v Makola (43/2020; RCN 32/19)

S v Makola (43/2020; RCN 32/19) [2020] ZALMPPHC 79 (9 September 2020)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

43/2020; RCN 32/19

Judges

MF Kganyago, MV Semenya

The court found that the accused's convictions for intimidation under section 1(1)(b) of the Intimidation Act 72 of 1982 must be set aside because the Constitutional Court declared that provision unconstitutional and invalid in the Moyo case. The order of invalidity operates retrospectively to pending trials and appeals where the right of appeal has not yet been exhausted. Since the accused had been convicted but not yet sentenced, his trial was not finalized and he had not exercised his right of appeal. Therefore, it would not be in accordance with the administration of justice to proceed wi…

Source excerpt

• Intimidation Act Unconstitutionality
• Retrospective Application Of Invalidity
• Sentencing Procedure
• Crimen Injuria

S v Kuzana (A442/20; 05/20)

S v Kuzana (A442/20; 05/20) [2020] ZANCHC 49 (8 July 2020)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

A442/20; 05/20

Judge

Nxumalo

The court found that the presiding magistrate failed to comply with section 274(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act by not affording the prosecutor and accused's legal representative an opportunity to address the court on sentencing. Furthermore, the magistrate did not determine the nature and extent of the correctional supervision sentence, instead referring only to an attached report. This constitutes a procedural irregularity rendering the proceedings not in accordance with justice. The court also held that the wording used in sentencing was not ambiguous and did not create confusion, as the…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Procedure
• Correctional Supervision
• Right To Address Court
• Fair Trial Rights

S v Jujuse (R15/2020)

S v Jujuse (R15/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 28 (13 February 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

R15/2020

Judges

Mathebula, Molitsoane

The court found that the original sentence imposed by the trial magistrate was ambiguous in its conditions for suspension, failing to specify that the offence must be committed within the period of suspension. Additionally, the reference to Section 103 was incomplete and could cause confusion regarding the accused's status in relation to firearm possession. The court replaced the sentence to clarify that the suspension applies only if the accused is not convicted of contravening section 1(1) of Act 6 of 1959 (Trespassing) committed within the period of suspension, and explicitly declared the…

Source excerpt

• Sentencing Procedure
• Suspended Sentence Conditions
• Firearm Possession Disqualification
• Trespassing