Lekeka v S (1136/2022) [2025] ZASCA 182 (1 December 2025)

Case Note

Lekeka v The State (1136/2022) [2025] ZASCA 182
Date: 1 December 2025

Reportability

This case is not reportable but holds significant implications regarding the standard of exceptional circumstances required for the reconsideration of a decision refusing leave to appeal. It emphasizes the criteria established in section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, particularly the threshold for demonstrating potential grave injustice or disrepute to the administration of justice. The judgment reinforces the court's position on the reliance on circumstantial evidence in criminal convictions and the procedural adherence expected from legal representatives during trial and appeal.

Cases Cited

• Motsoeneng v South African Broadcasting Corporation Soc Ltd and Others [2024] ZASCA 80; 2025 (4) SA 122 (SCA)
• Bidvest Protea Coin Security (Pty) Ltd v Mandla Wellem Mabena (Bidvest) [2025] ZASCA 23; 2025 (3) SA 362 (SCA)
• Godloza and Another v S [2025] ZACC 24
• Liesching and Others v The State [2018] ZACC 25; 2019 (4) SA 219 (CC)
• S v Chabedi 2005 (1) SACR 415 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

• Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
• Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
• Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Rules of Court Cited

• None cited.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa considered an application for reconsideration of a decision that previously denied special leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence of Daniel Lekeka for two counts of murder and one count of robbery with aggravating circumstances. The Court ultimately upheld the lower court's conclusion that there were no exceptional circumstances warranting a re-examination of the decision.

Key Issues

The court addressed the following legal issues: - The definition and application of exceptional circumstances under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act. - The assessment of circumstantial evidence and whether it suffices for a conviction. - The adequacy of legal representation and the procedural integrity in raising new arguments during appeal.

Held

The Court held that Daniel Lekeka failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that would justify a reconsideration of the earlier decision refusing leave to appeal. Consequently, the application was struck from the roll, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts.

THE FACTS

Daniel Lekeka was charged with the murder of Pamela May Leslie and Thomas Leach, alongside robbery involving the theft of their vehicle. The incidents occurred at their residence in Johannesburg on September 14, 2006. Lekeka was found guilty based on circumstantial evidence indicating he had access to the victims' properties and had been present leading up to their deaths. Despite his claims of an alibi and insufficient direct evidence linking him to the crime, the High Court concluded that the circumstances provided a reasonable inference of his guilt, leading to a life sentence for each murder count and a concurrent ten-year sentence for robbery.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying the reconsideration of the decision denying special leave to appeal. Moreover, it evaluated the validity of claims regarding the adequacy of legal representation and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence leading to Lekeka's conviction.

ANALYSIS

In its reasoning, the court underscored that the threshold for exceptional circumstances must show a probability of grave individual injustice or disrepute to the administration of justice if not reconsidered. The applicant's assertions largely encompassed a reiteration of arguments made previously during his trial and the appeal, which did not satisfy the requirement for a substantial new claim. The court stressed that prior decisions, particularly by the full court and previous judges, had already addressed the factual disagreements raised by the applicant concerning the circumstantial evidence. The court also explicitly noted the importance of the role of the legal representative and considered that any claims of improper conduct or inadequate defense should have been raised in earlier proceedings.

REMEDY

The court ordered that the application for reconsideration of the decision refusing special leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was to be struck from the roll.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The decision confirms the legal principle that exceptional circumstances must demonstrate a significant injustice or a threat to the integrity of judicial proceedings before a reconsideration can be warranted. It reaffirms that appeals based on previous arguments or attempts to raise them at later stages will not meet the threshold for such reconsideration. Furthermore, it highlights the necessity for legal representatives to effectively communicate with their clients and ensure that important defenses are presented adequately during trials and appeals.