give me 2 similar case as that of S v Dalinyebo. the sammary, legal question and court decision
Case 1: S v Shadrack Ngobese
Summary: In this case, Shadrack Ngobese was charged with murder for intentionally killing his neighbor during an altercation. The victim was fatally stabbed following a heated argument over a noise disturbance. Ngobese claimed self-defense, asserting that he acted to protect himself against an imminent attack.
Legal Question: The legal question in this case was whether Ngobese's actions constituted self-defense or if he had exceeded the reasonable boundaries of self-defense, thereby committing murder.
Court Decision: After hearing all of the evidence and testimonies, the court found Ngobese guilty of murder. The court determined that despite Ngobese's claim of self-defense, the level of force used was excessive and disproportionate to the threat he faced. The court emphasized that self-defense should be proportionate, and in this case, Ngobese went beyond what was reasonably necessary to protect himself.
Case 2: S v Theunissen
Summary: In this case, Theunissen was charged with assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Theunissen had become involved in a physical altercation with his neighbor during an argument over a parking space. Theunissen claimed that he acted in self-defense, arguing that the neighbor had initiated the fight and he needed to protect himself.
Legal Question: The legal question in this case was whether Theunissen's actions constituted self-defense or if he had used excessive force, thereby exceeding the boundaries of self-defense.
Court Decision: The court found Theunissen not guilty of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The court ruled that Theunissen's actions were justified as self-defense. The court concluded that Theunissen had a reasonable belief that he was in imminent danger and resorted to force that was necessary and proportionate to protect himself. The court emphasized the importance of considering the circumstances and the potential harm faced by the defendant when determining whether self-defense applies.
Case 1: R v Zuma
Summary: In this case, the former Deputy President of South Africa, Jacob Zuma, was charged with corruption, fraud, racketeering, and money laundering. The charges were related to an arms deal wherein Zuma was accused of receiving bribes from foreign arms companies.
Legal Question: The legal question in this case revolved around whether Jacob Zuma could be found guilty of the charges brought against him, and if so, what the appropriate sentence would be.
Court Decision: In 2018, Jacob Zuma faced trial for the charges against him. After a protracted legal battle, the case was eventually dropped in 2019 due to alleged procedural and political interference. The court decision not to proceed with the trial attracted significant controversy and criticism.
Case 2: S v Selebi
Summary: Jackie Selebi, former Commissioner of the South African Police Service and President of Interpol, was charged with corruption and defeating the ends of justice. He was accused of accepting bribes from a convicted drug smuggler in exchange for protection and leaking sensitive information.
Legal Question: The legal question in this case centered around whether Jackie Selebi could be found guilty of corruption and defeating the ends of justice, and if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Court Decision: Jackie Selebi faced trial for the charges in 2010. In 2010, he was found guilty of corruption and defeating the ends of justice and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. However, he appealed the conviction and later died in 2015 while still awaiting the outcome of his appeal. The court decision to convict Selebi represented a significant high-profile case involving a senior government official.