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
Lombard v Fort Hare University and Another (154/2024) [2025] ZAECMKHC 24 (11 March 2025)
The court ordered return of cattle seized by police without satisfying warrantless-search requirements, but also barred the applicant from disposing of them for six months.
S v Mias (Special Review) (CA&R 64/2024) [2024] ZANCHC 104 (12 November 2024)
The magistrate exceeded his sentencing jurisdiction by imposing a sentence of four years imprisonment for stock theft, when the statutory maximum for a non-regional magistrate's court is three years. The refusal to commit the accused for sentencing by the regional court was not justified. Given the delay in review and the full facts before the High Court, it is in the interests of justice for the High Court to finalize the matter. The accused's personal circumstances, including unemployment, family responsibilities, and lack of financial motive, were considered. The prevalence of stock theft…
Source excerpt
Mtshali and Another v S (2498/2024P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 29 (28 March 2024)
Appeal dismissed against refusal of bail in a stock theft matter. The court found no material misdirection and held the appellants had not shown release was in the interests of justice.
Lungu v S (CA&R89/22) [2023] ZAECMHC 19 (2 May 2023)
The High Court upheld a sentence appeal in a stock-theft matter, finding the trial court misdirected itself and replacing the sentence with a fine and suspended term.
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Kwetana (4034/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 35 (10 June 2022)
Forfeiture of a Toyota Quantum and trailer used to transport stolen sheep was refused because, although the property was an instrumentality, forfeiture was disproportionate.
Nhlapo v Minster of Police and Another (204/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 87 (11 May 2022)
The court found that the arresting officer, Mokanyane, was a peace officer who acted on credible information provided by the complainant and the investigating officer. The circumstances surrounding the identification of the cattle, the plaintiff's failure to provide proof of purchase, and the fresh branding of the cattle supported a reasonable suspicion of stock theft. The jurisdictional requirements for a lawful arrest without a warrant under section 40(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act were satisfied. The court held that the arrest was not unlawful and that the plaintiff's claim for damag…
Source excerpt
S v Moses (R40/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 191 (12 August 2021)
The High Court set aside a Magistrate’s Court conviction and sentence after finding that the accused’s section 112(2) guilty-plea statement was defective and the proceedings irregular.
Myeza and Others v S (A211/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 653 (16 September 2020)
The court found that the trial court misdirected itself by applying the minimum sentencing provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 105 of 1997, to theft of livestock based on the value of the cattle. The correct interpretation, as established in S v Naidoo, is that 'amounts' in the Act refer to monetary theft, not the value of stolen goods. The Supreme Court of Appeal's decision in S v Brown was distinguished, as it dealt with fraud and not theft of goods. The court reconsidered the sentences in light of the appellants' personal circumstances, the seriousness of the offence, and the int…
Source excerpt
Myeza and Others v S (A211/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 581 (16 September 2020)
The court found that the trial court misdirected itself by applying the minimum sentencing provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 105 of 1997, to the theft of livestock based on the value of the stolen cattle. The correct statutory framework for sentencing is the Stock Theft Act, 57 of 1959, which does not prescribe the same minimum sentences. The court agreed with the reasoning in S v Naidoo, holding that 'amounts' in the Act refer to financial crimes and do not include the value of stolen goods. The sentences imposed by the trial court were therefore set aside and replaced with sente…
Source excerpt
Sibeko v S (BA17/ 2020) [2020] ZAMPMHC 13 (30 May 2020)
The High Court upheld Dinky Freemen Sibeko’s bail appeal, set aside the magistrate’s refusal, and granted bail subject to conditions.
Explore more
