About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAECPEHC 25
|
|
S v Matinjwa and Another (CC21/2014) [2016] ZAECPEHC 25 (4 May 2016)
NOT
REPORTABLE
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN
CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH)
Case
No: CC21/2014
In
the matter between:
THE
STATE
And
NYANISO
PATRICK ANELE MATINJWA
SIPHUMELELE
PHETHELO
Accused
Coram:
Chetty J
Heard:
3 May 2016
Delivered:
4 May 2016
Chetty
J:
[1]
When the accused were arrested they both reeked of alcohol. The
presence of the empty beer bottles in the vehicle attests to
the fact
that after having murdered and robbed the deceased of his vehicle,
they spent the evening drinking. Accused no. 2’s
graphic
account of their gallivanting that evening and the following morning
the sale of the deceased’s motor vehicle radio
to enable them
to purchase more liquor demonstrates a particular callousness.
Accused no. 2’s statement is of course not
admissible against
accused no. 1 but the absence of the radio and the presence of the
empty beer bottles justifies the inference
that the radio was sold to
enable them to purchase more liquor. When they encountered the police
the following day, they appeared
unperturbed. Accused no. 2’s
penchant for violence is amply demonstrated by his robbing the boys
of their possessions. This
type of behaviour cannot be countenanced.
The killing of the deceased was senseless. The accused must have been
aware of the presence
not only of other fishermen in the area but the
inhabitants of the surrounding houses. Undeterred they shot the
deceased in cold
blood and nonchalantly stood around his vehicle for
four (4) minutes before driving off. This conduct demonstrates a
complete lack
of respect and contemptuous defiance.
[2]
It is common cause that the murder conviction attracts a mandatory
sentence of life imprisonment absent a finding of substantial
and
compelling circumstances. I have been urged to find that the personal
circumstances of the accused constitute the requisite
factors which
per se render the imposition of such a sentence unjust. The personal
circumstances outlined by the accuseds’
legal representatives
are not unique. Millions of our citizens have similar backgrounds and
yet refrain from similar conduct.
[3]
The accused have throughout persisted in their denial that they
killed the deceased. Why and for what reason the deceased was
shot
remains a mystery. This was clearly not a random shooting - It is
apparent from the medical report that the deceased was summarily
executed. The law enjoins me to impose a sentence of life
imprisonment unless I find that there are substantial and compelling
circumstances which militate against the imposition of such a
sentence. In my judgment, this is precisely the type of case where
the ordained sentence is the only appropriate one. Behaviour such as
this cannot be countenanced in a civilized society. The accused
are
clearly a menace to society and deserve the ultimate sentence.
[4]
On Count 1: Robbery with aggravating circumstances
Accused
No.’s 1 and 2 are sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
On
Count 2: Murder
Each
accused is sentence to imprisonment for life.
On
Count 3: Robbery with aggravating circumstances
Accused
no. 2 is sentenced to 15 years imprisonment
On
Count 4: Unlawful possession of a firearm
The
accused are sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.
On
Count 5: Unlawful possession of ammunition
The
accused are sentenced to I year imprisonment.
It
is ordered that the sentences imposed on each of the counts run
concurrently.
___________________
D
CHETTY
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT