South Africa Case Law

M.B. v S (A94/2024)

M.B. v S (A94/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 707 (14 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A94/2024

Judges

Mdalana-Mayisela, Moosa

The court found that the complainant was a credible and competent witness whose evidence was corroborated by medical reports and other witnesses. The appellant's version was inconsistent and not reasonably possibly true. The State proved all elements of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The lower court correctly applied the cautionary rule and found no substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentences. The appellant's personal circumstances were considered flimsy and did not warrant a lesser sentence. The effective sentence of life imprisonment was…

Source excerpt

• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Act
• Minimum Sentencing
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Single Witness Rule
• Assault Gbh
• Kidnapping

M.K and Another v S (A312/2022)

M.K and Another v S (A312/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1143 (30 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A312/2022

Judges

Tshombe, MJ Mosopa

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal against conviction for rape and sexual offences, upholding a trial court’s credibility findings on a child complainant’s evidence.

• Rape
• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Act
• Minimum Sentences Legislation
• Child Witness Evidence
• Credibility Assessment
• First Report Evidence

Kemp and Another v S (A312/2022)

Kemp and Another v S (A312/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1141 (30 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A312/2022

Judges

Tshombe, Mosopa

The appeal court found that the trial court correctly assessed the evidence of the complainant, a single child witness, and applied the cautionary rule. The inconsistencies identified in her evidence were minor and related only to peripheral details, not to the commission of the offences. The complainant's account of the events was credible, consistent on material aspects, and supported by her conduct and the surrounding circumstances. The trial court's findings on credibility were not materially misdirected and are presumed correct. The appellants' bare denials were improbable and unsupporte…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Act
• Minimum Sentences Legislation
• Single Witness Evidence
• Child Witness Cautionary Rule
• Credibility On Appeal

Galeboe and Another v S (A138/2023)

Galeboe and Another v S (A138/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 212 (18 July 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A138/2023

Judges

Van Rhyn, Majosi

The High Court dismissed an appeal against rape convictions and life sentences, finding the child complainant credible and no substantial and compelling circumstances.

• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Act
• Minimum Sentencing
• Child Witness Evidence
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Firearms Control Act
• Children Act Unsuitability

S v Botha and Another (1/2023)

S v Botha and Another (1/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 430 (29 April 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

1/2023

Judge

Africa

High Court sentence for rape, child abuse, attempted murder and murder against two accused, imposing 25 years and life imprisonment.

• Rape
• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Act
• Child Abuse
• Murder
• Sentencing Principles
• Minimum Sentences

Mabalane v S (CA41/19)

Mabalane v S (CA41/19) [2023] ZANWHC 97 (15 June 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA41/19

Judges

Petersen, Reddy

Appeal partly succeeded after the court found procedural non-compliance with intermediary rules and unreliable identification evidence on count 2.

• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Act
• Child Witness Protection
• Intermediary Appointment
• Identification Evidence
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Firearms Control Act

Dlamini v S (A04/2021)

Dlamini v S (A04/2021) [2021] ZAMPMHC 30 (15 November 2021)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A04/2021

Judges

Ratshibvumo, Mankge

The appellate court found no material misdirection in the trial court's evaluation of evidence or in its factual findings. The contradictions raised by the appellant were either minor, taken out of context, or did not undermine the complainant's credibility. The evidence, including independent witness testimony and the medical report, supported the conviction for kidnapping and rape. The sentence of life imprisonment was mandated by statute, as the complainant was raped more than once, and no substantial and compelling circumstances justified deviation. The ancillary orders regarding inclusio…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Kidnapping
• Minimum Sentencing
• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Act
• Firearms Control Act
• Children Suitability Orders

Lefu v S (A73/2019)

Lefu v S (A73/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 96 (15 March 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A73/2019

Judges

Van Zyl, Majosi

The court found that while the appellant was correctly convicted of rape, robbery with aggravating circumstances, and sentenced based on overwhelming evidence including DNA, the conviction and sentence under s 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 were not supported by the charge sheet or the evidence. The charge sheet failed to specify the grounds for common purpose or the applicable statutory provisions, and the evidence showed that the rapes occurred independently, without multiple acts or co-perpetration as required by s 51(1). The appellant was not properly informed of the…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Common Purpose
• Charge Sheet Amendment
• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Act
• Criminal Law Amendment Act

Lefu v S (A73/2019)

Lefu v S (A73/2019) [2021] ZAFSHC 60 (15 March 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A73/2019

Judges

Van Zyl, Majosi

The court found that while the appellant was correctly convicted of rape and robbery, the evidence did not support a conviction under s 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, as the charge sheet failed to specify the grounds for common purpose and the appellant was not adequately informed of the statutory provisions. The complainants were raped independently, and there was no evidence of multiple rapes or joint perpetration. The charge sheet was not amended to reflect common purpose, and the appellant's awareness of the minimum sentencing provisions was not canvassed. Consequently, the conv…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Common Purpose
• Charge Sheet Amendment
• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Act
• Criminal Law Amendment Act

Wentzel v S (A354/19)

Wentzel v S (A354/19) [2020] ZAWCHC 132 (19 October 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A354/19

Judges

Henney, Martin

The High Court upheld an appeal against sexual-offence convictions, finding the complainant’s single-witness evidence insufficient and the convictions unsafe.

• Sexual Offences And Related Matters Act
• Single Witness Evidence
• Rape
• Statutory Sexual Assault
• Consent
• Burden Of Proof