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
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: CC 5/2024
(1)Reportable: No.
(2) Of interest to other judges: No
(3) Revised.
Date 20 May 2025
Signature
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
DOCTOR NKURUBE MARUMA
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE
Munzhelele J
[1] The accused, Doctor Nkurube Maruma , was convicted of the following offences:
• Rape: Counts 1, 3, 6, 8, 13, 15, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36, 40, 42, 44,
and 46.
• Housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery with aggravating circumstances:
Counts 2, 9, 12, 14, 20, 23, 25, 31, 33, 41, and 45. The aggravating
circumstances involved the wielding of a knife and/or a firearm.
• Housebreaking with intent to rape and rape: Counts 4 and 7.
• Housebreaking with intent to steal and theft: Counts 38 and 43.
• Sexual assault: Count 10.
• Attempted rape: Count 22.
• Robbery with aggravating circumstances: Counts 30, 37, and 39. The
aggravating circumstances involved the use of a firearm and/or a knife.
• Theft: Count 35
[2] Before passing sentence, section 274 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977,
requires the trial court to obtain sufficient information to enable it to impose an
appropriate and just sentence. The purpose is to ensure that the Judge is well -informed
about the relevant facts of the case, the circumstances of the accused, and any other
factors that may affect sentencing. In S v Samuels 2011 (1) SACR 9 (SCA) at [8]
Ponnan JA cited with approval the following paragraph from S v Siebert 1998 (1) SACR
554 (SCA) 558j –559a:
'Sentencing is a judicial function sui generis . It should not be governed by
considerations based on notions akin to onus of proof. In this field of law, public interest
requires the court to play a more active, inquisitorial role. The accused should not be
sentenced unless and until all the facts and circumstances necessary for the
responsible exercise of such discretion have been placed before the court.’
[3] The accused did not testify or call any witnesses, but relied on the pre -sentence
report for allaying his personal circumstances . The State also did not call any witnesses
but submitted th at the evidence on merits will be relied on to show the impact of these
offences on the victim s. The court h ad ordered that a pre-sentence report from the
probation officer should be obtained to have enough information during the sentence of
the accused . It was presented to court by Mr. Mbatha and handed in as evidence a nd
as exhibit “ZZ”. The pre -sentence repor t recommend ed that the accused be sentenced
to a minimum sentence in term s of section 51(1) of act 105 of 1997 .
[4] The personal circumstances of the accused are as follows: He is a 35 -year-old
single man and the father of three children. He previously resided with the mother of two
of his children, aged five and two years, respectively. He was the primary breadwinner
for his children; however, they are now dependent on child support grants for survival.
The accused has a history of abusive behavior towards his girlfriend, Ms. A[...] M[...] ,
and continues to threaten her, including threats to have individuals harm or kill her. He
attained education up to Grade 9 at Masobe High School. He has prior convictions for
assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Following the death of his mother, the accused has been left without familial support, as
his sibling relocated to Gauteng in search of employment. The accused acknowledges
that he has never been gainfully employed. Instead, he sustained himself through
criminal activities, including robbery , housebreaking and selling stolen property for
income.
The accused is in good physical health. He admit ted to consuming alcohol, smoking
cigarettes and marijuana, and later began using "kat" (khat). He has shown no remorse
for his actions. He has been in custody since the time of his arrest. He attributes his
behavior to alleged bewitchment.
[5] The victims of the accused’s crimes have suffered severe emotional and
psychological trauma, as was evident during the trial proceedings. Multiple victims
broke down in uncontrollable tears while testifying. Some collapsed in court, while
others fainted and required medical assistance, including being transported to hospital
via ambulance.
The victims were forced to relive the horrifying events during their testimony, causing
significant emotional distress. Shockingly, the accused was observed laughing during
portions of their testimony —an unusual and disturbing response that underscored his
lack of empathy for the victims’ suffering.
Arguments by the parties
[6] Counsel for the defense argued that accused’s upbringing should be considered
as well as the youthfulness of the accused . The accused was 26 years old when these
offences were committed. He was in custody since his arrest in 2022. That the accused
did not commit these offences with violence. That given the accused’s upbringing , he
requires rehabilitation . That he was in custody since his arrest. That the accused’s
sentence should be run co ncurrently with the sentence s of life imprisonment.
[7] The state argued that there are no substantial and compelling circumstances to
deviate from the minimum sentence s and that when he committed these crimes, he had
already passed the age of majority. He was 26 years to be precise. Therefore, he
cannot claim youthfulness as his reason to be given less sentence. Court should
consider the trauma which the victims had suffered including secondary trauma while
they were testifying thereby relieving the ordeal aga in. The accused should be given a
minimum sentence for all these offences which he had been found guilty of.
[8] The court must balance the accused's personal circumstances with the interests
of the victims and society. Following this, the court must consider whether there are
substantial and compelling circumstances to deviate from the minimum sentences .
In S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA), it was held that under these statutes, the
court must impose minimum sentences unless "substantial and compelling
circumstances" justify a lesser sentence. This framework was designed to ensure that
serious offenses are met with appropriately severe punishments while still allowing
judicial discretion when justified by case specifics. Courts are required to impose
sentences with the understanding that the legislature has mandated life imprisonment
(or the specific prescribed period of imprisonment) as the standard sentence for listed
crimes under specified conditions. Unless there are genuinely compelling reasons to
deviate, these crimes should elicit a severe, standardized, and consistent response
from the courts.
[9] The personal circumstances of the accused are relevant in assessing whether
there are grounds to depart from the minimum sentence. And these personal
circumstances were obtained from the pre -sentence report.
Age and family background: While the court considers that the accused is 3 4 years old,
a father of three children, and lacks stable family support, these factors are far
outweighed by the seriousness and frequency of his crimes. He was not a productive
member of society and lived off criminal activity as indicated from the pre-sentence
report. His prior conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and his
continued threats to his ex -partner indicate a pattern of violence and lawlessness.
Accused could not sustain jobs, therefore, he resorted to living out of crime. He had no
skill at all. His highest standard passed is grade 9.
Absence of Remorse
The accused showed no remorse throughout the trial. He laughed during the victim s’
testimon ies, mocked their suffering, and on the pre-sentence report he tried to blame
his actions on alleged bewitchment. This lack of insight or contrition is aggravating . The
conduct of the accused during trial, particularly his mocking demeanor and laughter
during victim testimony —demonstrates a total lack of empathy or regret. His actions
were calculated, repeated, and predatory in nature. They show a pattern of criminality
and complete disregard for the rule of law and the sanctity of human dignity.
Community involvement: the accused has terrorized the communities in which he lived
by committing endless crimes against them and their properties. There was nothing
positive which he contribute d to in his community.
Time spent in custody: He has been in custody since his arrest , awaiting trial, which can
be seen as a mitigating factor.
Grief and loss: The accused lost both his mother and grandmother while still young ,
which could be seen as an additional emotional burden to him. But his sister denies that
these should be regarded as an emotional burden in that she regards what accused did ,
as a choice influenced by peer pressure.
Impact on Victims
[10] The emotional and psychological trauma inflicted on the victims is profound. The
victims cried uncontrollably, some collapsed and fainted, and required medical
assistance. This indicates deep, lasting harm. Victim impact evidence further supports
the devastating consequences of the accused's actions.
Deterrence, Retribution, and Protection of Society
[11] Sentencing in this case must reflect the goals of general deterrence, retribution,
and protection of society. The court must send a clear message that gender -based
violence, rape, and violent robbery will be met with the harshest penalties. Society must
be protected from an individual who poses such a grave and ongoing threat .
Nature and Gravity of the Offences
[12] The accused committed a spree of violent sexual and property -related crimes
over numerous incidents, spanning multiple victims. Many of these were planned,
premeditated, and executed with violence, using weapons such as firearms and knives.
The use of violence, repeated victimization, and the nature of sexual violence demand
the highest level of condemnation , remorse for his conduct and attributes his actions to
alleged bewitchment.
The offences committed by the accused are of the most egregious nature. They involve
brutal violations of the victims' physical and psychological integrity, including repeated
acts of rape, often committed during home invasions, with the use of dangerous
weapons. The trauma suffered by the victims is extensive and enduring. The courtroom
was witness to the devastating emotional toll on these individuals during trial
proceedings.
[13] While the accused’s personal circumstances : that he is a bread winner, that he
was in custody awaiting trial, that he had difficult upbringing , that he lost his parents and
grandparent while still young are compelling, the nature and seriousness of the offenses
weigh heavily against him:
Interests of Society
[14] In our law , retribution and deterrence are proper purposes of punishment and
they must be accorded due weight in any sentence that is imposed. Each of the
elements of punishment is not required to be accorded equal weight, but instead proper
weight must be accorded to each , according to the circumstances. Serious crimes will
usually require that retribution and deterrence should come to the fore and that
rehabilitation of the offender will consequently play a smaller role. Moreover, as pointed
out in S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) , where the court finds that it is not bound
to impose a prescribed sentence, the sentence to be imposed in lieu of the prescribed
sentence should be assessed , paying due regard to the benchmark which the legislator
provided’. The offenses committed by the accused are socially egregious and violate
fundamental human rights especially section 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa Act, No. 108 of 1996 which provides that “Everyone has inherent dignity
and the right to have their dignity respected and protected ”. A strong message must be
sent to potential offenders that such actions will not be tolerated, which justifies the
imposition of minimum sentences under normal circumstances. In S v Kruger 2012 (1)
SACR 369 (SCA) Shongwe JA (Harms AP and Plaskett AJA concurring) confirmed that
'[p] punishing a convicted person should not be likened to revenge. It must have all the
elements of and purposes of punishment, prevention, retribution, individual and general
deterrence and rehabilitation’.
[15] The accused’s circumstances are standard normal circumstances . His
contributions to his family with proceeds of crime, his period of pre -trial detention,
cannot be regarded as substantial and compelling circumstances. His actions were
premeditated, calculated, and persistent over a period of time, which may diminish the
weight of any factor that might be a mitigating factor. In S v Vilakazi 2009(1) SACR 552
(SCA ) at para 58 , Nugent JA said that in cases of serious crimes like these, the
personal circumstances of the offenders by themselves will necessarily recede into the
background. Once it becomes clear that crime is deserving of a substantial period of
imprisonment.
The question of whether the accused is married or single, whether he has two children
or three, whether he is in employment are themselves largely immaterial to what the
period should be and those seem to be the kind of flimsy reasons, or flimsy grounds that
Malgas’ case said should be avoided. But they are nonethele ss relevant in other
respects . A material consideration is whether the accused can be expected to offend
again. While that can never be confidently predicted, his circumstances might assist in
making at least some assessment. Accused’s actions during the commission of these
crimes show a disregard for the law and the rights of others.
[16] This Court has considered the personal circumstances of the accused; however,
they pale in comparison to the severity and multiplicity of the offences committed. The
interests of society, the harm suffered by the victims, and the need for deterrence
overwhelmingly demand the imposition of the harshest penalties available under our
law. There are no substantial and compelling circumstances which I could find in the
personal circumstances of the accused and on the totality of the evidence.
[17] The defense counsel submits that the sentences should run concurrently . In S v
Mokela 2012 (1) SACR 431 (SCA) at [11] the court noted that an order that sentences
run concurrently is called for where the evidence shows that the relevant offences are
'inextricably linked in terms of the locality, time, protagonists and, importantly, the fact
that they were committed with one common intent’ . Again, in S v Sekwati (unreported,
GP case no A445/2015, 14 September 2016) at [13], where Makgoba J wrote as
follows:
'It is a salutary practice that if an accused is sentenced in respect of two or more related
offences, sentencing court should have regard to the cumulative effect of the sentences
imposed in order to ensure that the total sentence is not disproportionate to the
accused’s blameworthiness in relation to the offences in respect of which the accused
has to be sentenced ”
[18] Further again , it is important to emphases that s entencing the accused is within
the discretion of the trial court. In S v Karan 2019 (2) SACR 334 (WCC) at [21] where
Davis AJ (Erasmus J concurring) relied on the following statements by Terblanche A
Guide to Sentencing in South Africa 3 ed (2016) at 15:
'That the power to impose a sentence on a convicted offender is the domain of the
courts, the judicial authority in South Africa, is widely accepted. This principle is so
deeply embedded in our common law that it is difficult to find any source containing a
statement to this effect.’
[19] Accordingly, the following sentence s are appropriate.
1. Rape of adult count 1, 3, 6, 8, 15, 19, 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 34, 36, 40, 42,
44, and 46 , the accused is sentenced for 10 years on each count .
2. Count 13 rape of a minor . The accused is sentenced to life imprisonment
3. House breaking with intent to rob and robbery with aggravating circumstances ,
count 2 , 9, 12, 14, 20, 23, 25, 31, 33, 41, and 45. The accused is sentenced to
15 years imprisonment on each count
4. Count 4 and 7, houses breaking with the intent to commit rape and rape, the
accused is sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on each count.
5. Count 38 and 43 house breaking with intend to steal and theft . The accused is
sentenced to 7 years imprisonment on each count .
6. Count 10 sexual assault . The accused is sentenced to 5 years imprisonment .
7. Count 22 attempted to rape . The accused is sentenced to 8 years imprisonment
8. Count 30, 37, and 39 Robbery with aggravating circumstances . The accused is
sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on each count.
9. Count 35, theft . The accused is sentenced to 2 years imprisonment.
In terms of Section 280(2) Act 51 of 1977 the Court directs that the sentences imposed
in respect of all these counts shall run concurrently with the sentence of life
imprisonment.
Ancillary orders
1. In terms of Section 103 (1) of firearms control Act 60 of 2000 the court makes no
order. This means the accused is deemed unfit to possess a firearm.
2. In terms of section 103 (4) of firearms controls act 60 of 2000. The court has
made an order for the search and seizure of the accused’s premises for firearms,
ammunitions licenses and our competency certificate.
3. In terms of section 299A (1) of Act 51 of 1977, the court informs the complainants
that they have a right to make representations to the commissioner of the
correctional services when placement of the prisoner on parole is considered, to
attend any relevant meetings of the parole board, when the accused’s parole is
to be decided. This is subject to the directive issued by the Commissioner of
Correctional Services under section 4 of the Correctional Services Act
4. Accused has the right to appeal the convictions and sentences which were
imposed on hi m today. You can request legal aid attorneys or an attorney where
you pay out of your own pocket to assist you in bringing a substantive application
for leave to appeal the conviction and sentences , within 14 days of this sentence.
If your application is later than 14 days then you should apply for the
condonation, to be allowed an extension of time to file the application for leave to
appeal out of time.
M. Munzhelele
Judge of the High Court, Pretoria
Heard: 28-October 2024 - 20 May 2025
Delivered: 20 May 2025
Counse l for the State: Adv. Tshabalala
Counsel for the Accused: Ms. Masete