IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU -NATAL DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
CASE NUMBER: AR53/2024
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
SAMSON NKANYISO NGELEKA APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
P C BEZUIDENHOUT J: (SIBISI AJ CONCURRING)
[1] Appellant was convicted on a count of murder and sentenced to fifteen (15) years
imprisonment.
[2] With leave of the court a quo he now appeals against the sentence.
[3] The personal circumstances of Appellant are that he is 33 years of age, has two
minor children and was employed at Leach Landscaping ear ning R 4 600.00 per month.
He also supports his mother and was a first offender.
[4] The question that arises is whether there are substantial and compelling
circumstances that justify a deviation from the prescribed minimum sentence of fifteen
(15) years imprisonment.
[5] Appellant was convicted of assault with the intention of causing grievous bodily
harm in 2016 and sentenced to eighteen (18) months imprisonment which was wholly
suspended for a period of five (5) years.
[6] On the evening in question Appellant was at a tavern having a beer when he was
confronted by the deceased who was not known at the tavern.
[7] Appellant pleaded not guilty and denied stabbing the deceased.
[8] The state witnesses testified that Appellant w as on top of the deceased who was
lying on the floor stabbing him. An empty crate was used to hit Appellant to stop him
from stabbing the deceased. Appellant then ran away and was later found sleeping in
his room with his blood -stained clothes next to the bed. From the evidence it appears
there was an argument between the deceased and Appellant about a beer.
[9] Appellan t refused to stop assaulting the deceased when requested to do so and
only stopped after being hit with the plastic crate.
[10] Appellant and like -minded people must understand that in a civilised society
disagreements are not resolved by resorting to violence. More so in this case when the
deceased was in actual fact killed because of an argument over a beer.
[11] The taking of a life is a very serious offence as life is sacred. The conduct of
Appellant on the day in question was unacceptable .
[12] The fact that Appellant was employed and cared for his mother, in my view, are
normal neutral factors that do not amount to substantial and compelling circumstances.
[13] The learned Magistrate considered all the factors in determ ining the sentence.
There was no missdirections nor did he err in any way.
[14] The personal circumstances of Appellant nor any facts as at the time of the
incident amount to substantial and compelling circumstances. As was held in S v
Matyityi 2011 (1) SACR 40 (SCA) at 53 E-F. Courts are obliged to impose the minimum
sentences unless there are truly convincing reasons for departing therefrom.
[15] As set out above I am unable to find such reasons.
[16] The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
P C BEZUIDENHOUT J.
I agree.
SIBISI A.J.
JUDGMENT RESERVED: 25 APRIL 2025
JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN: 9 MAY 2025
COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: T TENGWA
LEGAL AID SOUTH AFRICA
JUSTICE CENTRE
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: N A KHANYILE
DPP PIETERMARITZBURG