Tladi v S [2006] ZAFSHC 95 (24 August 2006)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2006
>>
[2006] ZAFSHC 95
|

|

Tladi v S [2006] ZAFSHC 95 (24 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT
OF SOUTH AFRICA
(ORANGE FREE STATE
PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
Case No.: A189/2003
In the appeal between:
BEN MOLIFI
TLADI
Appellant
and
THE
STATE
Respondent
_____________________________________________________
CORAM:
CILLIé, J
et
EBRAHIM, J
JUDGMENT:
EBRAHIM, J
_____________________________________________________
HEARD ON:
14 AUGUST 2006
_____________________________________________________
DELIVERED ON:
24 AUGUST 2006
_____________________________________________________
[1] The appellant was
convicted of murder in the Regional Court sitting at Welkom on the
1
st
of October 1999 and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. He appeals
against his conviction and sentence.
[2] The charge against
the appellant arose out of an incident at a tavern at which he, the
deceased, and the single State witness,
Robert Mohoaladli were
present. The appellant at some stage attempted to share in the
liquor being consumed by Robert and the deceased
but his attempt to
do so were resisted. He then left the deceased but later followed
him as he was leaving the tavern. The State
witness saw him make a
movement with his hand towards the deceased’s chest after which the
deceased was seen holding on to his
chest with both his hands. His
chest was bleeding. It is not clear on the evidence precisely when
the deceased died. A post-mortem
examination conducted on his body
established that he had died as a result of a stab wound to the
heart.
[3] It was common cause
during the trial that the appellant had stabbed the deceased but he
said he had done so in self-defence.
The learned magistrate, in my
view, correctly rejected this version as being not reasonably
possibly true on the totality of the
evidence and Mr. Pretorius who
argued the appeal on the appellant’s behalf, wisely did not press
the point of an improper conviction.
[4] I am unable to fault
the learned magistrate’s approach to the assessment of the single
State witness’s evidence and that of
the appellant and his
preference for the State witness’s evidence to that of the
appellant where it conflicted therewith. The
appeal against the
conviction must accordingly fail.
[5] Mr. Pretorius was far
more convincing in his quest for a lighter sentence to be imposed on
the appellant. The main thrust of
his submissions in this regard
were that this was a “bar brawl” over liquor, there was an
absence of premeditation on the part
of the appellant and the
deceased was stabbed only once. Accordingly he argues a sentence of
15 years imprisonment was excessive
and unnecessarily harsh. His
plea might have struck a responsive cord had it not been for the
“impressive” list of previous
convictions owned by the appellant.
Whilst it is true that these offences of which the appellant was
previously convicted fell in
a different category and was unrelated
to the crime of murder, they nevertheless were numerous enough to
have caused the appellant
to receive a warning that he was in danger
of being declared a habitual criminal. This warning was clearly
ignored by the appellant
when he committed an even more serious
offence by taking the decease’s life. In light of this it cannot
be said that the sentence
of 15 years imprisonment is glaringly
inappropriate.
[6] I
would accordingly dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction and
sentence.
____________
S EBRAHIM, J
I
concur.
_______________
C.B. CILLIé, J
On
behalf of appellant: Attorney K. Pretorius
Instructed by:
Legal Aid Board
BLOEMFONTEIN
On
behalf of respondent: Adv. E. van Rensburg
Instructed by:
Director Public Prosecutions
BLOEMFONTEIN
/em