This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

South Africa This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

SAFLII reports this case as S v Mashumpa, but then in the judgement Froneman J uses both "Mshumpa" and "Mashumpa". And I see that Juta and Butterworths go with "Mshumpa". I'll create a redirect from S v Mashumpa for now anyway, but for the title of the article should we go with the name used in SAFLII (and listed on the filing sheet) or the name used by Juta (and more frequently used in the text of the judgment)? - htonl ( talk) 22:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC) reply