About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 185
|
|
Hlatshwayo v S (A569/15) [2021] ZAGPPHC 185 (12 March 2021)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION PRETORIA
CASE
NO:
A569/15
REPORTABLE:NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:NO
REVISED
DATE:12
MARCH 2021
In
the matter between:
BONGANI
TIMOTHY
HLATSHWAYO
Appellant
and
THE
STATE Respondent
JUDGMENT
BAM J:
1.
On the 11
th
of February 2015 the appellant was convicted in the Regional Court,
Evander, on one count of Murder committed on the 17
th
May 2014.
2.
Leave to appeal against only the conviction
was granted on the 18
th
of March 2015.
3.
At the trial the accused was represented by
an attorney and pleaded not guilty, made formal admissions that he
stabbed the deceased
and that the deceased died as a direct result of
the stab wound. Appellant’s plea was that he acted in
self-defense.
4.
In order to lay the background to the
outcome of this appeal, I deemed it expedient to give a summary of
substantial facts.
5.
The evidence led by Namoya Maria Shabangu
and Nametha Esther Shabangu was that both the deceased and the
appellant had a fight,
they threw each other with stones. Both
witnesses testified that the deceased told the appellant to put the
weapons aside and to
fight with their bare hands. The deceased ran
away and he was followed by the appellant who was in possession of a
knife and axe.
The deceased fell into a furrow.
6.
There was a discrepancy between the
witnesses whether the deceased was facing up or down when the
appellant stabbed him, as well
as whether the appellant first stabbed
him or chopped him with an axe. What is clear is that the deceased
was on the ground and
he had no weapon in his hands, when he was
stabbed and chopped.
7.
There was no call to stab the deceased in
self-defense as the appellant was not in any danger and the appellant
was not subject
to any eminent danger at all, the deceased attempted
to get away from him.
8.
On appeal the legal representative stated
that the court a quo should have approached the evidence with caution
as the witnesses
materially contradicted each other on crucial
evidence, and thus the contradictions are irreconcilable.
9.
The trial court correctly found that the
crime was committed as alleged by the State and that the conduct of
the appellant exceeded
the bounds of self-defense.
10.
After having considered the evidence,
summarized above, and the submissions made on behalf of the appellant
and the State. There
is no basis upon which it can be said that the
trail court erred in any respect. The evidence proved beyond
reasonable doubt that
the appellant committed the crime.
11.
As stated above there is no appeal against
sentence, and it need not be addressed.
ORDER:
The
appeal against the conviction is dismissed.
The
conviction and sentence are confirmed.
AJ
BAM (J)
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG
DIVISION
I
agree
MB
MABUNDA (AJ)
ACTING
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG
DIVISION
DATE
OF HEARING (ON PAPER)
: 01 FEBRUARY 2021
DATE
OF JUDGMENT
:
12 MARCH 2021
APPEARANCES:
For
the Appellant
: Mr MB Kgagara
For
the Respondent
: Advocate SD Ngobeni