About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Mpumalanga High Court, Mbombela
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Mpumalanga High Court, Mbombela
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAMPMBHC 55
|
|
S v Mndawe (Conviction) (CC22/2021) [2022] ZAMPMBHC 55 (4 February 2022)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
MPUMALANGA
DIVISION, MBOMBELA (MAIN SEAT)
CASE
NUMBER: CC22/2021
REPORTABLE:
YES / NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
REVISED.
4/2/2020
In
the matter between:-
THE
STATE
versus
JULIUS
THABISO MNDAWE
Accused
JUDGMENT
(CONVICTION)
GREYLING-COETZER
AJ
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The accused,
JULIUS
THABISO MNDAWE
(“the
accused”), having allegedly committed Serial Femicide is
indited on five counts of the murder
and five charges of
Defeating/Obstructing the Administration of Justice.
[2]
The State contended
that the five victims (all young female person) were murdered by the
accused over a period of sixteen months,
as from January 2018 to May
2019. It was further contended that upon unlawfully and intentionally
murdering the five victims, the
accused concealed their remains by
burying same in shallow graves on his property.
[3]
The incidents
underpinning the aforesaid charges occurred in Numbi Trust, in the
district of Masoyi, where the accused lived alone.
[4]
The specific
allegations levelled against the accused are that:-
(a)
Count 1 -
Murder
:
Upon or about 9 May 2019 and at or near Numbi Trust in the district
of Masoyi, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill
Elina
Tokkie Tlaka
,
an adult female person.
(b)
Count 3 –
Defeating the Administration of Justice
:
Upon or about 9 May 2019 at or near Numbi Trust in the district of
Masoyi, the accused did unlawfully and with the intent to defeat
or
obstruct the administration of justice, by committing an act to wit
kill
Elina
Tokkie Tlaka
and conceal her body by burying the said body in a shallow grave in
his yard.
(c)
Count 5 -
Murder
:
Upon or about 6 January 2019 and at or near Numbi Trust in the
district of Masoyi, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally
kill
B[....]
K[....]
, a
minor female person.
(d)
Count 6 –
Defeating the Administration of Justice
:
Upon or about 6 January 2019 at or near Numbi Trust in the district
of Masoyi, the accused did unlawfully and with the intent
to defeat
or obstruct the administration of justice, by committing an act to
wit kill
B[....]
K[....]
and conceal her body by burying the said body in a shallow grave in
his yard.
(e)
Count 7 –
Murder
:
Upon or about March 2018 and at or near Numbi Trust in the district
of Masoyi, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally kill
Noxolo
Purity M[....]i
an adult female person.
(f)
Count 8 –
Defeating the Administration of Justice
:
Upon or about March 2018 at or near Numbi Trust in the district of
Masoyi, the accused did unlawfully and with the intent to defeat
or
obstruct the administration of justice, by committing an act to wit
kill
Noxolo
Purity M[....]i
and conceal her body by burying the said body in a shallow grave in
his yard.
(g)
Count 9 -
Murder
:
Upon or about 28 April 2018 and at or near Numbi Trust in the
district of Masoyi, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally
kill
N[....]
I[....] M[....]i
a minor female person.
(h)
Count 10 –
Defeating the Administration of Justice
:
Upon or about 28 April 2018 at or near Numbi Trust in the district of
Masoyi, the accused did unlawfully and with the intent to
defeat or
obstruct the administration of justice, by committing an act to wit
kill
N[....]
I[....] M[....]i
and conceal her body by burying the said body in a shallow grave in
his yard.
(i)
Count 11 -
Murder
:
Upon or about 2 September 2018 and at or near Numbi Trust in the
district of Masoyi, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally
kill
F[....]
M[....]2
a
minor female person.
(j)
Count 12 –
Defeating the Administration of Justice
:
Upon or about 2 September 2018 at or near Numbi Trust in the district
of Masoyi, the accused did unlawfully and with the intent
to defeat
or obstruct the administration of justice, by committing an act to
wit kill
F[....]
M[....]2
and conceal her body by burying the said body in a shallow grave in
his yard.
[5]
Count 2 and 4 having
been withdrawn by the State.
[6]
The State indicated
that Section 51(1) as read with Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
are applicable in that the
murders were planned or premeditated, and that a minimum sentence of
life imprisonment would therefore
be applicable.
[7]
Before the accused
pleaded to the charges, the provisions, import and implications of
Section 51(1)
of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
were
explained to the accused, and he confirmed to understand same. The
legal representative appearing on his behalf also confirmed
on record
that same was explained to the accused earlier, and that his
confirmation is therefore in line with her instruction.
[8]
I hence forth refer
to the victims by their names, as it is ever too easy to merely refer
to them as “the victims” or
“the deceases”.
Sometimes, although momentarily, forgetting that each of them was
persons in their own right, who ought
to have enjoyed the right to be
called by their names .
THE
PLEA
[9]
The accused pleaded
guilty to all the charges levelled against him, and a written plea
explanation was placed before the court.
In terms of Section 112 of
the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (as amended) the accused
admitted to:-
(a)
unlawfully and
intentionally killing
B[....]
(a 15 year old
female) on 6 January 2018 and concealing her body by burying it in a
shallow grave in his yard;
(b)
unlawfully and
intentionally killing
Noxolo
(an adult female)
during March 2018 and concealing her body by burying it in a shallow
grave in his yard;
(c)
unlawfully and
intentionally killing
N[....]
(a minor female) on
28 April 2018 and concealing her body by burying it in a shallow
grave in his yard
(d)
unlawfully and
intentionally killing
F[....]
(a minor
female) on 2 September 2018 and concealing her body by burying it in
a shallow grave in his yard; and
(e)
unlawfully and
intentionally killing
Elina
( an adult female) on
9 May 2019 and concealing her body by burying it in a shallow grave
in his yard.
[10]
According to the
accused, the events leading up to each murder were as follows:-
The
murder of
B[....]
[11]
The accused stated
that
B[....]
was the sister of his then girlfriend, whose name was not disclosed.
[12]
On 6 January 2018
B[....]
indicated
that she was going to report the accused to the SAPS for raping her,
and as this was not true, the accused became very
angry. The accused
then assaulted
B[....]
with his fists until she fell to the ground, not moving.
[13]
The accused then
realized that
B[....]
was not breathing and dead. As he was scared, he decided to bury
B[....]
in his yard in order to hide her body, as he knew that he would be in
trouble for what he had done.
The
murder of
Noxolo
[14]
During March 2018,
the exact date being unknown,
Noxolo
went to the accused’s house, where they got involved in an
argument. According to the accused this argument escalated to
the
extent that he assaulted
Noxolo
until she fell to the ground and was no longer breathing.
[15]
When the accused
realized that
Noxolo
was dead, he became scared and buried
Noxolo’s
body in his yard in order to hide it, as he knew he would be in
trouble for what he had done.
The
murder of
N[....]
[16]
On 28 April 2018
N[....]
went to the accused’s house, where they got involved in an
argument. According to the accused this argument escalated to
the
extent that he assaulted N[....] until she fell to the ground and was
no longer breathing. When he realized that she was dead,
he became
scared and buried her body in his yard to hide it, as he knew he
would be in trouble for what he had done.
The
murder of
F[....]
[17]
On 2 September 2018
F[....]
went to the accused’s house, where they got involved in an
argument, which escalated to the extent that he assaulted
F[....]
until she fell to the ground and was no longer breathing. He again
realized that F[....] was dead and he became scared. He similarly
buried F[....]’s body in his yard in order to hide it, as he
knew he would be in trouble for what he had done.
The
murder of
Elina
[18]
The accused explained
that he knew
Elina
.
On 8 May 2019 she went to the accused, near the place where he was
staying. According to the accused
Elina
wanted money from him. He however informed her that he did not have
money, whereafter
Elina
left.
[19]
Elina
returned the
following day on 9 May 2019 and again asked the accused for money.
The accused said that he did not know why she wanted
money from him.
[20]
According to the
accused they became angry with one another, and
Elina
slapped him, whereafter the accused assaulted
Elina
with his fists until she fell to the ground. Elina was neither moving
nor breathing, and the accused realized that she was dead.
He became
scared and decided to bury her body in his yard in order to hide it,
as he knew he would be in trouble for what he had
done.
Denial
of planning
[21]
Although the accused
admitted to the murders and the concealment of the bodies of the five
female persons, he stated that he never
planned to cause their
deaths. He explained that he was extremely remorseful for what he had
done, and that is the reason why he
told the police what happened and
showed the police where their bodies were buried, and telling the
court what happened.
FORMAL
ADMISSIONS BY THE ACCUSED
[22]
Before the State
started leading evidence on the only dispute issue, planned or
premeditated, the accused (duly assisted and advised
by his legal
representative) admitted certain facts relating to the individual
charges in terms of Section 220 of the Criminal
Procedure Act 51 of
1977 (as amended).
[23]
Such admissions were
made in writing and embodied in Exhibit “B”, which was
initialed and signed by both the accused
and his legal
representative. All the signatures were placed on paper in the
court’s presence and in the presence of the
State.
[24]
The written formal
admissions statement in terms of Section 220 of the Act inter alia
confirmed that:
(a)
Elina,
B[....], Noxolo, N[....] and F[....]
died as a result of
the injuries they sustained at Numbi Trust between the period January
2018 to May 2019;
(b)
that they were
all buried by the accused at the accused’s homestead without
help from anyone else;
(c)
that on 1 July
2019 the police went to the accused’s homestead and found the
cellphone handset of
Elina
,
whereafter the accused volunteered information to the police as to
the whereabouts of
Elina,
and later of
B[....],
Noxolo, N[....]
and
F[....];
(d)
that the
accused identified the human remains of 5 woman and pointed them out
to the police as being that of
Elina,
B[....], Noxolo, N[....] and Felica.
[25]
The following
documents and content were also tendered as formal admissions in
terms of Section 220, and were dealt with and described
in the
written Section 220 statement:-received as Exhibits C to H2
(a)
In respect of
Elina
,
the medico-legal post-mortem report, conveyance of the body
affidavit, declaration of death affidavit, affidavit in terms of
Section 212(4) of the Act, the description and key to the
photographs, photo album consisting of 45 photos in respect of the
pointing
out and certified copies of the SAP13 record relating to
Elina’s cellphone.
(b)
In respect of
B[....],
the medico-legal post-mortem report, conveyance of the body/remains
affidavit, declaration of death affidavit, affidavit in terms
of
Section 212(4) of the Act, the description and key to the photographs
and a photo album consisting of 45 photos in respect of
the pointing
out.
(c)
In respect of
Noxolo,
the medico-legal post-mortem report, conveyance of the body/remains
affidavit and declaration of death affidavit.
(d)
In respect of
N[....],
the medico-legal post-mortem report, conveyance of the body/remains
affidavit and declaration of death affidavit.
(e)
In respect of
F[....],
the medico-legal post-mortem report, conveyance of the body/remains
affidavit, declaration of death affidavit, affidavit in terms
of
Section 212(4) of the Act, the description and key to the photographs
and a photo album consisting of 34 photos in respect of
the pointing
out in respect of the body of
Noxolo,
N[....] and F[....].
STATE
WITNESS IN RESPECT OF PREMEDITATION
[26]
The State called one
witness in respect of the disputed issue of premeditation or
planning.
Sergeant
Mnisi, the investigating officer, testified that:-
(a)
Elina’s
human
remains were found inside the yard of the accused, more particularly
the garden of the accused, next to the toilet (which
was a pit
toilet);
(b)
B[....]’s
and
Noxolo’s
human remains were found in the accused’s garden;
(c)
N[....]’s
and
F[....]’s
human remains were found to be buried under the cement floor of an
unfinished structure attached to the accused’s house.
[27]
According to Sergeant
Mnisi he knew Elina and the accused to be boyfriend and girlfriend.
[28]
According to his
observations of the crime scenes and places of burial, which he
visited on more than one occasion, he observed
three shallow graves
in the garden, approximately 2-3 meters apart from one another, and
approximately 1 meter deep.
[29]
With regards to
Elina’s grave, Sergeant Mnisi noticed burnt blankets and that
it was wet. He further observed a trench approximately
8 meters from
the shallow grave to a water tap inside the accused’s premises,
and that there was water flowing from the tap
which ran into the
shallow grave.
[30]
He further observed a
similar trench between a drainage pipe protruding from the wall of
the house to B[....]’s grave. No
water was running from the
said drainage pipe. He testified that the same was observed in
respect of Noxolo’s grave.
[31]
With regards to
F[....]’s and N[....]’s grave, they were buried
underneath the cement floor, parallel to one another.
[32]
During
cross-examination, Sergeant Mnisi confirmed that he did not request
the Local Criminal Record Center: Nelspruit, to photograph
these
trenches. As such, these trenches are not visible from admitted photo
albums.
[33]
Sergeant Mnisi
further testified that Elina, B[....] and Noxolo did not reside in
the direct vicinity of the accused, but N[....]
and F[....] did.
During cross-examination Sergeant Mnisi elaborated and testified that
B[....] lived in Swalalla Trust, which is
approximately 20 minutes’
drive, and between 15-20km from the accused’s residence. Elina
resided in Ngobeni Trust,
which is approximately 10 minutes’
drive and 10km or less away from the accused’s residence.
Noxolo resided in MashadzaTrust,
which is approximately 10-15km away
from the accused’s residence, whereas F[....] and N[....] lived
3-5 minutes’ walk
away from the accused’s residence.
[34]
The State closed its
case, whereupon the Defense closed its case without leading any
evidence.
ARGUMENT
[35]
It was argued on
behalf of the State that considering the common cause facts that all
the victims were known to the accused, resided
in the greater Masoyi
area, were murdered in a similar manner, and buried in the same way,
are indicative that the murders were
committed in circumstances of
premeditation.
[36]
According to the
State and common cause evidence, the deaths could not have been
spur-of-the-moment, as suggested by the accused.
Even should one
accept that the first incident, causing the death of B[....], was
committed within the spur-of-the-moment, same
cannot be said for the
remaining four murders.
[37]
It was argued that
there was a clear pattern of young women, killed in the accused’s
house and buried by the accused in his
yard (some bodies buried 3
meters apart). This, the State argued, could almost be seen as a plan
being played out and executed,
as opposed to the bodies being
sporadically buried as and when the killings took place.
[38]
It was argued on
behalf of the Defense that the State is requesting the court to rely
on similar facts with sufficient probative
value, to make a
presumption that there was premeditation. Although similar facts are
not usually accepted, it is in some instances.
But said instance
requires a nexus for the court to make the presumption in respect of
time and place. Although there were five
bodies found in the
accused’s yard, and in each incident there was an argument that
escalated to an assault, which assault
was so severe that the accused
did foresee that it might lead to death.
[39]
According to the
Defense there was no evidence that the assaults took place in the
accused’s house. The State has not proven
act of prior
preparation, and is therefore only relying on the coincidences that
there were five bodies.
[40]
The Defense further
argued that there was no pattern, as the first murder happened and
was only followed two months later by that
of Noxolo. Then a further
month passed before the murder of N[....]2, whereafter there was a
lapse of five months before F[....]
was murdered. Then a further
eight months passed before Elina was murdered.
[41]
According to the
Defense there was no evidence that the accused formed the intention
to lure the women to his place of residence,
some of them even
staying further than 10km away. It was simply spur-of-the-moment
arguments leading to assault, which in turn
led to death, by a man in
an emotional rage. This does not prove premeditation.
[42]
I understood the
defense to argue that just because similar facts are present in
respect of the five murders does not mean the murders
were
premeditated.
MEDICO-LEGAL
POST-MORTEM REPORT
[43]
Per the admitted
post-mortem report the following findings and observations were made:
43.1
Elina
was an adult black
female.
·
Her skull was
partly burned.
·
Her cause of
death was determined to be
unnatural
due to the existence advanced stage of decomposition.
·
Both hands and
feet were absent with multiple pieces of green broken glass present,
including two pieces covering the eye sockets.
·
Her orbital
and nasal bones intact.
·
Her
uterus was absent.
43.2
B[....]
was found to be a
minor black female,
·
15 years of
age,
·
the cause of
death was
undetermined
due to the advanced stage of decomposition.
·
no injuries
were present on her bones,
·
her orbital,
nasal and oral cavities were intact.
43.3
In respect of
Noxolo
it was found that she was a young adult black female.
·
There was
evidence of fatal blunt head trauma, causing depressed skull
fracture, sized 35mmx28mm, which could be a hammer blow.
·
the cause of
death was determined to be a
fatal
blunt head trauma.
43.4
In respect of
N[....]2
it was confirmed that she was a minor black female
·
younger than
the age of sixteen.
·
cause of death
undetermined
due to the advanced stage of decomposition
·
A white shoe
lace and piece of wire were found around both of her upper limbs and
in front of the skeleton, which finding suggests
that
N[....]2
had been legated around the wrists.
43.5
In respect of
F[....]
,
was a black female
·
approximately
17 or eighteen years of age.
·
Due to the
advanced stage of decomposition, her cause of death was
undetermined
.
[44]
None of the reports
recorded absence of teeth, broken facial bones or any broken bones.
The photo album received into evidence in
respect of
Elina
,
displays the presence of her full set of teeth. These are injuries
ordinarily present in person assaulted to death or assaulted
with a
fist to death.
LEGAL
PRINCIPLES
[45]
It was held in
S
v Nduna
2011 (1) SACR 115
(SCA) that whilst similar fact evidence is
admissible to prove the identity of an accused person as the
perpetrator of an offence,
it cannot be used to prove the commission
of the crime itself. The honourable court added that this legal
principle operates, in
addition, to exclude such similar fact
evidence from being confirmatory. material on another count. The
learned judge proceeded
to elucidate the above principle by stating
that:
“
18.
However, the application of the
rule is not to be confused with the situation where the rule is
invoked to establish the cogency
of the evidence of systematic course
of wrongful conduct, in order to render it more probable that the
offender committed each
of the offences charged in respect of such
conduct.
C S v
Gokool
1965 (3) SA 461
(N) at
475A-D). The appellant’s argument, if it were to be accepted,
would be tantamount to excluding evidence of the modus
operandi of
the appellant merely because he had been charged with more than one
count of robbery
.”
[46]
In S v Gokool
1965
(3) SA 461
(N), Harcourt J said the following at 475D-F:
“
It
is clear that each count brought against an accused person must be
considered
separately and that the admissibility of evidence on each
count
must be tested as if that count had been the only count against
such
accused - R v Buthelezi ,
1944 T.P.D. 254.
But this does not
prevent
material, which could be admissible under the rules relating to
similar
fact evidence, from being received merely because a plurality of
counts
is involved in a case
.”
[47]
The above rules and
principles speak to the circumstances of this case and the type of
similar fact evidence was thus quite relevant.
[48]
In
S
v Raath
[1]
the Full Bench of the Western Cape Division gave the following
exposition of the importance of the term “
premeditated
”:-
“
The
concept of a planned or premeditated murder is not statutory defined…
Clearly the concept suggest a deliberate weighing
up of the proposed
criminal conduct as opposed to the commission of the crime on the
spur of the moment or in unexpected circumstances.
There is, however,
a broad continuum between the two poles of a murder committed in the
heat of the moment and a murder which may
have been conceived and
planned over months or even years before its execution. In my view
only an examination of all the circumstances
surrounding any
particular murder, including not least the accused’s state of
mind, will allow one to arrive at a conclusion
as to whether a
particular murder is ‘planned’ or ‘premeditated’.
In such an evaluation the period of time
between the accused forming
the intention to commit the murder and carrying out this intention is
obviously of cardinal importance
but, equally, does not at some
arbitrary point, provide a ready-made answer to the question of
whether the murder was ‘planned’
or ‘premeditated’.
[49]
The time lapse between the intention to commit
the crime and the execution of the crime might suggest an opportunity
for reflection
about and before carrying out the intention. That
being said, planning does not necessarily involve a long period of
time. Similar
reasoning was employed by the Supreme Court of Appeal
in
Kekana v S
2014 (ZASCA) 158 (1 October 2014) where Mathopo AJA (Lewis JA and
Govender AJA concurring) held that:
“
(i)
n
my view it is not necessary that the appellant should have thought or
planned his action a long period of time in advance before
carrying
out his plan. Time is not the only consideration because even a few
minutes are enough to carry out a premeditated action.
”
[50]
In
Montsho
v S
[2015]
ZASCA 187
the
Supreme Court of Appeal held that the facts of the matter determine
whether the crime was premeditated:
‘
[13]
In the view I take of the matter, I do not consider that there is any
benefit to be derived, on the facts of this case,
in
formulating a general definition of whether the phrase ‘planned
or premeditated’ denotes a single concept. The inquiry
as to
whether or not any given facts would at the very least sustain an
inference to be drawn from them as to whether or not an
accused had
manifested a plan or premeditation to commit the offence in issue can
properly be determined on a case by case basis.
Thus
the circumstances in which a crime was committed and the peculiar
facts of each case will determine whether or not the commission
of
the crime was planned or premeditated.’
[51]
As can be seen from the authorities, whether or
not a murder is planned or premeditated, is determined upon a
consideration of the
facts of a particular matter.
[52]
The following emerges
from the facts:
52.1
The accused knew
Elina,
B[....],
Noxolo, N[....]2 and F[....]
.
Thus the accused was also known to them.
52.2
Elina, B[....],
Noxolo, N[....]2 and F[....]
on 5 different
occasions went to the accused’s house. The circumstances of
this not being placed before court.
52.3
At the accused’s
house,
Elina,
B[....], Noxolo, N[....]2 and F[....]
each got involved in an argument with the accused.
52.4
Each of these
arguments escalated;
52.5
The accused assaulted
each of them;
52.6
First in time, Jan
2018 ,the accused became very angry and assaulted
B[....]
with his fists until she fell to the ground and not moving;
52.7
March 2018, the
accused assaulted
Noxolo
until she fell to the ground and was not breathing;
52.8
April 2018, the
accused assaulted
N[....]2
until she
fell to the ground and was not breathing.
52.9
September 2018, the
accused assaulted
F[....]
until she
fell to the ground and was not breathing and
52.10
May 2019, the accused
assaulted
Elina
with his fists until she fell to the ground. This was preceded by the
accused becoming angry and Elina slapping the accused,
[53]
In respect of
all
of them
the accused realized that they were dead, he became scared and buried
their bodies.
[54]
All the bodies were
buried on the accused’s premises.
·
Three bodies
were buried in the accused’s garden, approximately 2-3 meters
apart
·
Two bodies
were buried under a cement floor of an unfinished structure next to
the accused’s house, parallel with one another.
[55]
These murders took
place in the following sequence:-
·
January 2018:
B[....]
,
fifteen years of age, was buried in the accused’s garden and
her remains found 18 months later;
·
March 2018:
Noxolo
,
who was barely an adult at an age of between eighteen and twenty-one,
having died of blunt head trauma and a fractured skull,
was buried in
the accused’s garden and her remains found 16 months later;
·
April 2018:
N[....]2
was
younger than sixteen years of age. Her wrists were tied and she was
buried under a cement floor and her remains found 15 months
later;
·
September
2018:
F[....]
,
whose cause of death was undetermined, was found buried under a
cement floor, parallel to the body of
N[....]2,
F[....]’s remains found 9 months later;
·
May 2019:
Elina
was found 2 months later with a burned skull, absent her hands
and feet.
[56]
Evaluating
all the evidence against the comments
inter
alia
both
Raath
supra
and
Montsho
v S
there
is a deliberate course of action which was so organized as to
increase the likelihood of success and enable evasion
of apprehension
thereafter.
[57]
All
5 murders were committed at the house of the accused, where he stayed
alone, calculated to increase the likelihood of success.
They were
all committed with only the accused and one of the woman present at
the time.
The
postmortem evidence attributing more to the method of death than an
mere assault.
Their
bodies were disposed of to evade apprehension.
[58]
The similarities of
these five murders are such that it can simply not be viewed as
individual distinct events. These facts of similarity
sets out the
systematic
course of wrongful conduct.
[59]
It is inconceivable
how the accused could have acted in the heat of the moment on five
separate occasion over a period of sixteen
months. The common cause
evidence does not support such a finding.
[60]
On each occasion
according to the accused found himself in exactly the same situation
as before, where he entered into an argument
with the deceased,
assaulted her to death, then realized what he had done and hide his
crime. This speaks to rationalization. The
accused overall conduct
puts paid to the suggestion that these murders were in the spur of
the moment assaults. The postmortem
reports reveal more than
mere assault. The coincidence argued for by the defence is wholly
improbable.
[61]
The
five murders all show
consistent
course of conduct
[2]
:
61.1
one method of
selection of the victim, young black females;
61.2
all coming to him his
homestead
61.3
one geographical
area, the accused homestead within 20km from where the woman reside;
61.4
one result, death;
61.5
one method of
disposal of the bodies, burial in shallow graves on his propert.
[62]
I
am satisfied that the only reasonable inference to be draw from
totality of the evidence and facts is that the accused premeditated
these murders applying thought and carried it out, making sure that
it was complete and concealing his criminal acts. on this basis
overcoming the required stands.
ORDER
You
are found :
GUILTY
OF COUNT 1 – The premediated Murder of
Elina Tokkie Tlaka
GUILTY
OF COUNT 5 – The premediated Murder of
B[....] K[....]
GUILTY
OF COUNT 7 - The premediated Murder of
Noxolo Purity M[....]i
GUILTY
OF COUNT 9 – The premediated Murder of
N[....]2 I[....]
M[....]i
GUILTY
OF COUNT 11 – The premediated Murder of
F[....] M[....]2
GUILTY
OF COUNT 3,6,8,10 and 12 – Defeating or obstructing the course
and administration of Justice.
GREYLING-COETZER
AJ
DATE
OF HEARING:
2
FEBRUARY 2022
DATE
OF JUDGMENT:
4 FEBRUARY 2022
FOR
THE STATE:
Advocate
Mata - Prosecutor
FOR
THE DEFENSE:
Advocate Erasmus – Legal Aid
[1]
2009
(2) SACR 46
(C) at par 16
[2]
S
v
Phillips
1985 (2) SA 727
(N)