S v Majola and Others (CC D13/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 40 (20 June 2025)

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
KWAZULU -NATAL LOCAL DIVISION, DURBAN

CASE NO: CC D13/2024

In the matter between:

THE STATE

and

MZAMELENI TSHEPHO MAJOLA ACCUSED 1

NKAZIMULO NDLOVU ACCUSED 2

MONDLI FIHLELA ACCU SED 4
___________________________________________________________________

ORDER
___________________________________________________________________
According, I make the following order:

1. Accused 1 is found not guilty of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26.
2. Accused 1 is found guilty on counts 17, 18 and 21 regarding robbery with
aggravating circumstances

3. Accused 2 is found not guilty of counts 1, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25
and 26.
4. Accused 2 is found guilty of count 2 regarding the murder of Velani Shezi,
count 3 the murder of Bhekani Mntungwa; count 4 attempted murder of
Kheswa; count 5 robbery with aggravating circumstances at Vuka Enterprise,
count 6 the murder of Sandile Mthembu; coun t 7 the murder of Mxolisi Goqo;
count 8 robbery with aggravating circumstances, count 9 the unlawful
possession of a prohibited fire arm; count 10 Unlawful possession of
ammunition; count 11 murder of Sphelele Ndiyaza; count 12 attempted
murder of Busizwe Goodwill Ngcobo; count 13 attempted murder of
Nonkululeko Mthimkhulu; count 22 robbery with aggravating circumstances at
KwaSomkhele; count 23 murder of Sbonelo Gumede and count 24 attempted
murder of Vusi Mthiyane.
5. Accused 4 is not found guilty of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. Accused 4 is found guilty of count 14 the kidnapping
Nkomonde, count 15 the robbery with aggravating circumstances. Count 16
murder of Patricia Nkomonde, count 22 robbery with aggravating
circumstances, count 23 murder of Sbonelo Gumede and Count 24 attempted
murder of Vusi Mthiyane.

___________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
Mathenjwa J

Introduction

[1] The first, second, and fourth accused (collectively referred to as the “the
accused”) are each charged with one count of contravening of s 9(1) (a) and/or
9(1)(b) and/or 9(2) (a) and/or 9(2) (b) and/or 9(2) (c), read with ss 10 and 11 of the
Prevention of Organised Crime Act 21 of 1998 (“POCA”) . It is alleged that the
accused unlawfully and intentionally participated in or were members of a criminal
gang, and wilfully aided criminal activities undertaken for the benefit of, or in

association with, any criminal gang. Additionally, the accused face the following
charges: seven counts of murder, four counts of attempted murder, nine counts of
robbery, one count of unlawful possession of automatic rifle, one count of unlawful
possession of prohibited firearm, and two counts of unlawful possession of
ammunition. Thus, in total, the accused are facing 26 charges. The charges were
withdrawn against accused 3 prior to commencement of the trail.

[2] Prior to the accused e ntering their pleas, the Court, acting mero motu , raised
concerns about the discrepancies in the averments relating to the locality where the
offences were allegedly committed. Specifically, counts 9, 10, 25 and 26 stated that
the offences were committed a t Ntshwaweni area, in the district of Empangeni.
However, count 22 stated that the offence was committed at Masango bus stop at
Mkhanyakude, whereas count 23 states that Masango stop is in the district of
Ethekwini, and count 24 state s that Masango stop i s in the district of Kwamsane.
While it is correct that someone who is not familiar with the localities to confuse that
Ntshawini is located in Stanger rather than Empangeni, however, it is illogical for the
same Masango bus stop to be situated at thre e different districts: Mkhanyakude,
Msane, and Ethek wini.

[3] The accused have a right to a fair trial, which include the right to be informed
of the charges against them with sufficient detail to enable them to properly
respond.1 For these reasons, I adjourned the matter and afforded the State an
opportunity to amend its indictment before the accused pleaded. On resumption, the
State applied for amendment of the indictment. The application was not opposed,
and the amendment was gr anted accordingly.

[4] The amended charges were put to the accused as follows:

(a) Count 1: unlawful and intentional participation in the activities of a criminal
gang and/or being a member of a criminal gang, and commission of, or aiding
criminal activities for the benefit of, or in association with such a criminal
gang.

1 S 35 (3) (a) of the Constitution ,

(b) Counts 2 and 3: the murders of Velani Shezi and Bhekani Mtungwa,
committed at Vuka Enterprise, Springfield, Durban, on 3 November 2021.
(c) Count 4: attempted murder where Cyril Kheswa was shot at Vuka Entreprise
Springfiled, Durban, on 3 November 2021.
(d) Count 5: robbery with aggravating circumstances, where a 38 calibre Taurus
firearm was taken from the deceased, Bhekani Mntungwa, at Vuka Enterprise,
Springfield, Durban, on 3 November 2021.
(e) Counts 6 and 7: the murders of Sandile Mthembu and Mxolisi Goqo who
were killed at Myingazi, area, Nseleni, Empangeni, on 28 January 2022.
(f) Count 8: robbery with aggravating circumstances where a motor vehicle was
taken from the deceased, Mxolisi Goqo, in t he Myingazi area, Nseleni,
Empangeni, on 28 January 2022.
(g) Counts 9 and 10: unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm, namely a 9mm
pistol, and unlawful possession of ammunition, both found in possession of
the accused at Ntshawini area, Stanger, on 1 F ebruary 2022.
(h) Count 11: murder of Sphelele Ndiyaza at Nseleni Township, Empangeni on
29 January 2022.
(i) Counts 12 and 13: attempted murder of Busizwe Ngcobo and Nonkululeko
Mthimkhulu at Nseleni Township EMpangeni on 29 January 2022.
(j) Count 14: kidnapping of Emmanuel Nkomonde at Punters Hill, Durban, on 3
January 2022.
(k) Count 15: robbery with aggravating circumstances where an Audi A3 motor
vehicle was taken from Emmanual Nkomonde at Punters Hill, Durban, on 3
January 2022.
(l) Count 16: murder of Patricia Nkomonde at Punters Hill, Durban, on 3 January
2022.
(m) Count 17: robbery with aggravating circumstances, where a motor vehicle
was unlawfully and intentionally taken at gunpoint from Nkosingiphile Booi at
Cato Crest, Durban, on 14 Novemb er 2020.
(n) Count 18: robbery with aggravating circumstances, where goods belonging to
Silindile Khumalo were unlawfully and intentionally taken at gunpoint from her
at her home at Indus Lane, Durban, on 26 July 2021.

(o) Count 19: robbery with aggravating circ umstances, where a motor vehicle
was unlawfully and intentionally taken at gunpoint from Dhanasagaren
Naidoo at Silver Willow Road, Durban, on 13 June 2021.
(p) Count 20: robbery with aggravating circumstances, where goods were
unlawfully and intentionally t aken at gunpoint from Appalsamy Ramadu from
his bottle store at Peter Mokaba Road, Durban, on 13 June 2021.
(q) Count 21: robbery with aggravating circumstances, where a motor vehicle
was taken at gun point from Jerry Mirimi at Sliver Willow Road, Durban, on 13
January 2022.
(r) Count 22: robbery with aggravating circumstances, where a motor vehicle
was taken at gun point from Vusi Mthiyane at Masango bus stop
Kwasomkhele Mtubatuba on 15 January 2022
(s) Count 23: murder of Sbonelo Gumede at Masango bus stop Kwa somkhele,
Mtubatuba on 15 January 2022.
Count 24: attempted murder of Vusi Mthiyane at Kwamasango bus stop,
KwaSomkhele, Mtubatuba, on 15 January 2022.
(t) Counts 25 and 26: unlawful possession of prohibited firearm, an AK -47 and
ammunition that was in posse ssion of the accused at Ntshawini, Stanger on 1
February 2022.

[5] The State alleged that the accused committed the offences in furtherance of a
common purpose. The accused were informed of the prescribed minimum sentences
in respect of the counts of murder, attempted murder, robbery with aggravating
circumstances, kidnap ping, unlawful possession of automatic rifle and unlawful
possession of prohibited firearm. All three accused were legally represented by
counsel appointed by Judicare. They all pleaded not guilty and elected not to
disclose the basis of their defence.

[6] The State called numerous witnesses. However, for the purpose of this
judgement, I will only concentrate on the evidence of some of the witnesses, for
reasons that will appear later in this judgement. One such witness is Sihle Mhlongo
(“Mlongo”), who was an accomplice. He was convicted and is currently serving a
sentence of 20 years imprisonment for robbery with aggravating circumstances and
kidnapping in respect of counts 14 and 15 in this matter. He was accordingly warned

in terms of s 204 of the Crimin al Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (“the CPA”). He knew
accused 2 and 4, and he only knew accused 1 by sight. He once resided with
accused 2 in Block F at Wema Hostel. He knew accused 4 from when he was still
residing at KwaMashu Hostel and he had frequently visi ted him at his dwelling place
at Punters Hill.

[7] Mhlongo testified that he together with accused 2 and 4, and other people
who are known to him by the names of Nathi, Ngidi, Shimza, Nqubeko, and Dlamini,
formed a group of about nine people who were frie nds, who would drink, and also
committed criminal offences together. They would commit any crime whenever an
opportunity avails itself. They would commit crimes collectively or individually. Most
of the crimes they committed included housebreaking and thef t to hijacking. They
resorted to committing crimes to make money out of crime because of
unemployment. There was no particular leader for the group, although a person
referred to as Shimza often assumed a leadership role within the group.

[8] On 3 January 2022, Mhlongo was at Punters Hill with accused 4 and other
people who are not before court. While there, they saw a white motor vehicle trying
to turn at a small passage. Mhlongo walked past the vehicle and accused 4 whom
he referred to as “Ntsh ebe” and Shimza were following him behind. When accused 4
and Shimza were alongside the car he heard Shimza state, 'let us take the car'. He
looked back and saw Shimza pulling the driver of the car out of the car, and made
him to hold on to the roof of th e car. Shimza told him to open the back door of the
car and told the driver of the car to get inside the car at the back seat. At that point,
he then saw a woman who had been seated in the front passenger seat exited the
car and picked up an object resemb ling a wheel jack. Mhlongo then heard a gunshot.
Although he did not see who had fired the shot, he saw that accused 4 was standing
in close proximity to the woman. The woman then collapsed onto her back, bleeding
from the forehead. Accused 4 and Shimza go t into the car and accused 4 gave
Mhlongo a gun to guard the driver of the motor vehicle at the back seat. He heard
Shimza asking accused 4 why he had shot the woman, accused 4 responded that he
shot the woman because he observed that she was trying to han d a blow on Shimza.


[9] Accused 4 drove the vehicle to KwaMashu. They dropped off the male victim
at KwaMashu, and thereafter, the accused proceeded to KwaMashu hostel where
accused 4 used to stay. Accused 4 parked the vehicle at Ezitolo zakwa Shenge
within the premises of KwaMashu hostel. Then, someone arrived at KwaMashu
hostel and took them with a car to Punters Hill. The following morning, accused 4
returned with the car at Punters Hill. It was at that stage that he realised that the car
was an Audi S3.

[10] On or about 9 January 2022, Mhlongo, together with Shimza, accused 2 and
4, went to his home at Nongoma to attend a funeral for his uncle. Accused 4 was
driving the white Audi vehicle that was taken during robbery at Punters Hill. Accused
2 was w earing a Sangoma gear with a sorong. Upon arrival, accused 2, 4 and
Shimza went into Mhlongo’s house, stayed for a while and they left back for Durban.
On their return to Durban, they used the road that goes through Mfolozi game
reserve towards Mtubatuba. On the following morning, Mhlongo phoned Shimza,
who was with accused 2 and 4, to find out whether they have travelling safely to
Durban. He heard voices from other group members in the background stating that
on their way to Durban they had taken another motor vehicle at Mtubatuba, it was a
white Polo motor vehicle.

[11] On his arrival to Durban, he found the white Polo car parked at accused 2's
residence at Punters Hill. It had bullet holes on the seat and dashboard. Accused 2
told him that, during the h ijacking, the driver shot at them and they shot him dead.
The incident occurred at Mtubatuba area and accused 2 showed him a gun they had
taken from the deceased.

[12] On or about 27 or 28 January 2022, Mhlongo slept at Dlamini's home, one of
the gang me mbers at Melmoth. Dlamini gave him an AK -47 and a white Polo car to
take it to accused 2 in Durban. He did not have drivers licence but, Dlamini informed
him that he will meet accused 2 on the way to Durban. On his way to Durban, at
Eshowe garage he picked up accused 1, who was hiking on the road. He did not
know accused 1 and he only knew him by sight. He used to see him at Punters Hill.
He gave accused 1 a lift because accused 1 indicated that he was going to Durban.
He was informed by Dlamini that he wou ld meet accused 2 at Gingindlovu, who will

be driving a black Polo. As he was approaching the T -junction at Gingindlovu he saw
a black Polo flickering lights. He approached accused 2 who was driving the vehicle.

[13] Mhlongo drove on the old road that g oes through Stanger towards Durban,
following accused 2 who was driving in front. Accused 2 stopped at a traffic light in
Stanger and informed him that they had to pass by his maternal uncle’s place. They
arrived at accused 2’s maternal uncle where they stayed about 1 -hour drinking beer.
Accused 1 was still with them and he also drank beer . They then proceeded to
Durban and on the road to Durban they encountered about three or four vehicles that
blocked them off the road. The occupants of those vehicles instructed him to raise
his hands. They subdued him, he fell down and he was arrested. They searched the
vehicle and found a rifle. All three of them, that is accused 1, 2 and himself were
arrested.

[14] Mhlongo was cross -examined by counsel for accused 2 and 4. He confirmed
that there was no promise made to him by the State when he pleaded guilty to the
charges against him. He averred that he was remorseful about what he had done. It
was put to Mhlongo that both accused 2 and 4 dispute that they knew hi m. Mhlongo
insisted that both accused 2 and 4 are members of the gang, he had often met with
them for purposes of committing crimes. Mhlongo stated that accused 1 had no
knowledge about the presence of AK47 rifle in the boot of the vehicle but accused 2
had knowledge of the AK -47 rifle that was found in the motor vehicle driven by
Mhlongo at Stanger.

[15] Colonel Hendrik Herbst (“Herbst”) testified that on 1 February 2022, he was
alerted about a VW Polo motor vehicle with registration number N[...] , which was
reportedly stolen that was seen on R102 road near Groutville, KwaDukuza. He
spotted the vehicle and stopped it. The vehicle was followed by another white polo
vehicle. When the black VW polo vehicle stopped, the white polo vehicle that was
followi ng it also stopped behind it. The driver of the black polo vehicle identified
himself as Nkazimulo Ndlovu (“Ndlovu”). On the foot pedal of the vehicle, Herbst
found a 9mm pistol with rounds of ammunition. He explained to Ndlovu (accused 2)
his constitution al rights and arrested him. He then approached the occupants of the
white polo vehicle. The driver of that vehicle identified himself as Sihle Mhlongo and

the passenger identified himself as Mzameleni Majola (accused 1). He searched the
vehicle and in the boot of the vehicle he found an AK -47 riffle with nine rounds of
ammunition. He informed Mhlongo and accused 1 of their constitutional rights and
arrested them. The white polo vehicle was an imported vehicle with registration
number B[...]. He booked al l the items found in possession of the accused as exhibit
at Stanger Police Station.

[16] Under cross -examination by accused 2’s counsel, it was put to Herbst that
accused 2 informed him that he received the vehicle from one Peter Hlabisa. Herbst
dispute d that and contended that the accused did not give him any explanation about
his possession of the vehicle, firearm and ammunition. Francois Snyman was with
Herbst when the motor vehicles in which the accused were travelling was stopped on
the road at Gro utville. Snyman corroborated Herbst’s testimony. He confirmed that a
9mm pistol was found in the black polo vehicle and an AK -47 was found in the boot
of the white polo vehicle.

[17] Themoshin Mike Singh (“Singh”) is a detective constable stationed at
Sydenham Police Station. On 15 February 2022, while on duty he received
complaint over the radio about a motor vehicle that was hijacked at Reservoir Hills.
He, together with Warrant Officer Ragen di Bessessar (“Bessessar”) proceeded to
the aforesaid address and found a white Audi S3 at the driveway. There was a
person sitting in the car who identified himself as Mondli Fihlela (“Fihlela” who is
accused 4). Fihlela confirmed that the vehicle belonge d to him. Singh confirmed the
VIN number of the vehicle that it was the vehicle that was hijacked and reported at
Mayville Police Station. The driver was detained at Mayville police station. Under
cross -examination, counsel for accused 4 put to Singh that the accused informed
Singh and other police officer that he received the vehicle from one Phumlani
Mthembu. Singh disputed that the accused gave explanation about his possession of
the vehicle.

[18] Bessessar confirmed that on 15 February 2022 he was in the company of
Singh when they found accused 4 seating at the driver’s seat of a white Audi motor
vehicle with registration number C[...] . He circulated the motor vehicle on the radio
control and discovered that the registration number on the vehicle w as not its

registration number, its actual registration number was N[...] which was reported
stolen during hijacking at Mayville Police Station. Under cross -examination he
denied that the accused gave him explanation about his possession of the vehicle.
He stated that the accused informed him that the vehicle belonged to him.

[19] Sabelo Hendrick Zwane (“Zwane”) is employed as a security guard employed
by BPSS Company at Morningside Village. During January 2022, while on duty, he
observed Nomusa, the owner of a tuckshop at Morningside Village, arrived in a
white Audi motor vehicle that w as driven by accused 4. Zwane knew accused 4 by
sight having occasionally met with him in a tuckshop owned by Nomusa. Nomusa
had made arrangement with Nobuhle, the owner of one of the flats at Morningside
Village, for accused 4 to park the motor vehicle a t parking bay V1, belonging to
Nobuhle. Accused 4 would regularly park the vehicle in the evenings or late
afternoons and drive away with it every morning. Accused 4 parked the vehicle in the
parking bay for almost a month and then disappeared.

[20] Xolani Emmanuel Nkomonde (“Nkomonde”) testified that on 3 January 2022,
at about 20h00, he was driving his white Audi with registration number N[...] with his
wife, Patricia Nkomonde, at Punters Hill. When he reversed his vehicle and turned
around, he saw a male person in front of the vehicle who was exhibiting aggressive
behaviour. Simultaneously, another male person approached the right side of the
vehicle swearing at him. When Nkomonde’s wife intervened, the second male
person swore at her . His wife the n existed the vehicle with a car -jack. At that stage,
a verbal altercation ensued between her and the man. Nkomonde got out of the car
and pleaded with the man who was arguing with his wife to forgive her . Suddenly
another man came behind Nkomonde and g rabbed him on his neck, and he heard a
gunshot.

[21] The person who grabbed him had a gun on his hand. Another man came
carrying a gun, searched him and asked him for keys of his motor vehicle.
Nkomonde told that man that the keys were in the car. He was then forcibly placed
into the back seat of the car at gunpoint. As this occurred, he saw his wife lying
down on the ground. There were three assailants in the car. Before they left, the
driver of the car handed a firearm to the person who was sitting with Nkomonde at

the back seat and gave him instruction to shoot Nkomonde if he makes any
movement. On arrival at KwaMashu, the driver of the vehicle told him that they would
drop him off at a certain spot and kill him, he was told to begin praying. The car
stopped at the shacks in KwaMashu, where another male person approached and
dismantled some parts of the motor vehicle. The car drove back to the road and
dropped him off along the side of the road. He ran in to a house alongside the road
where he was assisted by the occupants of the house to make a phone ca ll to his
mother.

[22] Subsequently, he was fetched by his sister from KwaMashu with a car. He
then learnt that his wife was admitted to Addington Hospital, where she died three
days later. From the ordeal with the assailants, he heard them mentioning the names
of “Shimza” and “Tshebe”. The driver of the vehicle was referred to as “Ntshebe”.

[23] Nkomonde attended an identification parade at Durban Central Police Station,
where he positively identified Mhlongo as one of the assailants. Although he did no t
identify any other person, he identified accused 4 in Court as one of the assailants.
He explained that he could not identity accused 4 at the identification parade
because he was not among those people that were lined up at the parade. If he was
there, he would have identified him. He is able to identify him, because he is the
person who came from the side where his wife was shot and that when they drove
with him around KwaMashu the streetlights illuminated accused 4’s face, allowing
him to identify him with certainty . Under cross -examination by counsel for accused
4, Nkomonde testified that accused 4 was the most violent and aggressive person
of the group, and he could not forget his face. He had stated in his police statement
that he was able to ide ntify accused 4 and emphasised that he remembered him
vividly due to the threatening and intense manner in which accused 4 told him that
he would be killed.

[24] On 3 January 2022, David Nkosingabantu Nzama (“Nzama”), a warrant
officer, in the South Afri can Police Services (“SAPS”) at the Mayville Police Station
interviewed accused 4. During the interview, accused 4 stated that the car was
borrowed to him by his friend from Newlands. He charged accused 4 for the murder

of Patricia Nkomonde, Nkomonde’s wif e, robbery with aggravating circumstances,
and the kidnapping of Xolani Nkomonde.

[25] On 3 November 2021, Nzama attended a scene of crime involving a double
murder at Vuka Enterprise Springfield. On 7 February 2022, he fetched accused 2
from Empangeni P rison and detained him at Mayville Police Station. The following
day, accused 2 participated in an identification parade where he was identified by a
witness as one of the assailants who committed the double murder at Vuka
Enterprise. Prior to the identif ication parade, Nzama informed accused 2 of his right
to legal representation at the identification parade. The accused gave him a phone
number for his attorney, Mr Ntenga, whom he wanted to attend the identification
parade. Nzama phoned Mr Ntenga, but was informed that he would only come to the
parade if the accused family were able to raise necessary fee that he required.

[26] Nzama was also the investigating officer of the robbery where Slindile
Khumalo was robbed of her goods at her home at Indus Lane , Springfield. On 4
February 2022, he fetched accused 1 from Empangeni Prison and inform him that he
was the suspect in that matter. After accused 1 was identified at the identification
parade Nzama charged him, after explaining to him his constitutional r ights.

[27] Bafana Khuse (“Khuse”) is the witness in counts 2, 3, 4 and 5. On 3
November 2021, while at his place of employment at Vuka Enterprises, Springfield,
he observed six black males arriving at the premises. It is pertinent to note that, one
week before 3 November 2021 two black males had previously visited Vuka
Enterprise and asked to purchase silicon. Khuse informed them that they silicon
was not available for purchase at their place and the men left. On 3 November 2021,
while at work he sa w six males entering through the gate. One of them remained at
the gate and five came inside to the warehouse where Velani Shezi, Khumalo and
himself were in.

[28] One of them uttered the words " how, so this is a warehouse" , before drawing
a firearm, a iming it at Khumalo and shot him. Khumalo was a security guard
employed at Vuka Enterprise. The person who shot Khumalo was wearing a hat
which was written “K- Way”. Then one of the assailants shot at Shezi identified as

accused 2. When Khumalo and Shez i were shot at, Mr Cyril Kheswa (“Kheswa”) , the
owner of Vuka enterprise , ran away and Khuse also ran away. As Kheswa and
himself were running away, the assailants fired shots at them. After the shooting
had stopped and the assailants had left the premises , Khuse returned to the scene
of the incident and found that Shezi was no longer moving but Khumalo was still
alive. At the time when Khumalo who is also referred as Mntungwa was shot,
Khumalo had a gun which was placed in the holster on his hip. When Khuse
returned from hiding, he observed that Khumalo's firearm was taken away from him.

[29] At a later stage , Khuse was invited to an identification parade at the Durban
Central Police Station , where he managed to point out accused 2 as one of the
assailants. It was not the first time for him to see accused 2 on the date of the
incident ; in fact, accused 2 was one of th e two persons who had previously visited
Vuka Enterprises and asked about purchasing silicon , a week prior to the date of
incident. Under cross examination , it was put to Khuse that in his statement to the
police , he stated that he can only identify the person who waited at the gate. Khuse
disputed that and contended that he informed the police who took his statement that
he could identify two people , that is , accused 2 and the person who was standing at
the gate , because they were the two people who ha d previously come at the
warehouse.

[30] Kheswa is the owner of Vuka Enterprise. He ran away from the scene when
the assailants fired shots at them and did not see the suspects. However, in court
he identified accused 1 in the dock as the person who shot Khumalo. His recollection
of accused 1 is based on a CCTV footage that he viewed after the incident. The
CCTV footage was not retrieved, and it is not available as evidence in this Court.

[31] Nkosivumile Booi (“Booi”) testified that on 14 November 2020 , at about
20h30 , he was driving his motor vehicle at Punters Hill. After he had stopped the
vehicle and dropped off some of his work colleagues who were passengers in the
vehicle, he saw a black male sitting by the wall of a tavern and fiddling with his cell
phone. Sudden ly, that man stood up and approached him , banged on the door of the
motor vehicle and when Booi looked at him, the man cocked a firearm and instructed
him to come out of the motor vehicle. Booi existed the vehicle , stretched out his hand

and attempted to grab the firearm from the man but the assailant won possession of
the firearm. Booi was shot on the leg and arm. He was severely injured. He sat down
because he was unable to run away. The suspect drove away with his motor
vehicle. He was admitted to hospi tal for more than a week. He later identified
accused 1 at the identification parade , stating that he had seen accused 1 prior to
the incident , particularly near the tavern . He had on various occasions seen
accused 1 at that place when Booi picked up and drop off his colleagues. There
were lights at the tavern and streetlights on the road that enabled him to see
accused 1 clearly .

[32] During cross -examination by counsel for accused 1 it was put to Booi that the
accused version would be that there was a tavern in the area belonging to a certain
Mkhize; the streetlights had not been working in that area for some time, therefore
there was no lights luminating from the streetlights, on the date of the incident. Booi
disputed that the streetlights were not working on the date of the incident and
maintained that the area was well -lit on the night in question .

[33] On 13 January 2023 , Mr Jerry Mirimi was driving his VW Golf 5 motor vehicle at
Silver Willow Road, Durban. He stopped at a container that sells chips and at the
stand, a black male approached him, cocked a firearm and instructed him to drop the
keys down and raise up his hands. The man grabbed the keys, got into his car and
drove away, but before the man drove away with the car he saw another blac k male
who was light in completion getting into the passenger seat of the vehicle and they
both left with his car. There was a light at the chip stand . He was able to identify
accused 1 at the identification parade as the person who jumped into the passen ger
seat of the vehicle before the assailants left .

[34] Slindile Precious Khumalo (“Slindile”) testified that on 26 July 2021 , at about
20h30 , she was watching an episode on the TV when people knocked on the door at
her home. They identified themselves as police officers. Her husband Jimmy opened
the door and two black males entered. One pointed a gun at Jimmy and demanded
money from him while the other man kicked Slindile and demanded money from her.
One of the assailants shot Jimmy on the leg. The assai lants robbed them of their two
cell phones and left. Jimmy was treated and released at King George Hospital.

Jimmy testified that there were lights in the house, he was able to identify accused 1
and 2 because he had often seen them in the area. Accused 1 is well known to him ,
he used to play soccer with him at Morningside Village ground. His name is Tsepo.
Accused 2 is not well known to him but he knew him only by sight. At an
identification parade, Jimmy correctly identified accused 1 but mistakenly pointed to
another individual instead of accused 2. In Court, however, he identified both
accused 1 and 2 in the dock .

[35] Colonel Bongani Cyprian Mathenjwa (“Mathenjwa”) testified that on 28
January 2022 , he attended a scene at Myingazi area, Nseleni, Empangeni , where
two people , Sandile Mthembu and Mxolisi Goqo, had been shot and killed . He learnt
that a black polo vehicle with registration number N[...] belonging to one of the
deceased , Goqo , was taken from him during the shooting incidence. Mathenjwa then
circulated the vehicle as stolen vehicle. On the following day, 29 January 2022 , he
attended a nother murder scene and attempted murder at Tholokuhle High School,
Nseleni, where Sphelele Ndiyaza was shot dead and two other people shot and
wounded by bullets.

[36] Xolani Mthimkhulu testified that on 29 January 2022 , he was with the
deceased Sphelele Ndiyaza , at his mother’s home, Nseleni, when two black males
came in chasing a girl child. The deceased and himself intervened and told the two
males to leave their mother’s house. The men resisted, but they managed to drive
them out. When Mthimkhulu and the deceased left his mother’s house to their motor
vehicle that was parked on the road, the two males approached again. At that stage ,
they pointed firearms at them. The two males fired shots at them. Mthimkhulu drove
away with his car to report the incident at Nseleni Police station. When he returned
to the scene he found Ndiyaza lying dead with gunshot wounds. He also noted that
his sister , Nonkululeko , was shot with a firearm at her fingers. Although it was at the
evening , there was still sufficient sunlight to enable visibility . He informed the police
that he was able to identify the assailant who was walking in front when the
assailants shot at them. He pointed at accused 2 in the dock as one of the
assailants. Under cross examination by accused 2’s counsel he stated that he could
not attend the identification pa rade to point out the accused because he was not
invited by the police officer to attend.


[37] On 28 January 2022 , Sergeant Sinenhlanhla Mthembu working at the Local
Criminal Record Centre, Richards Bay attended the scene of crime at Nseleni where
the dece ased Mxolisi Goqo and Sandile Mthembu were murdered. She found and
collected 8 x 9mm empty cartridges on the scene and sent them for ballistic
examination. On 29 January 2022 , she also attended the scene of crime at Nseleni
where Ndiyaza was murdered. She found and collected 2 x 9mm empty cartridges
on the scene which she sent to Amanzimtoti for ballistic examination.

[38] On 1 February 2022 , Warrant Officer Bhekumuzi Nhleko , was informed by
members of Stanger SAPS that the vehicle that was stolen from the deceased Goqo
when he was murdered at Nseleni had been recovered and the suspects were
arrested. He went to Stanger, collected accused 2 and charged him for the double
murder and robbery committed at Nseleni. Accused 2 did not give him any
explanation abou t his possession of the vehicle. He disputed that the accused told
him that he received the vehicle from a person named Peter Hlabisa. If accused 2
had given him that information, he would have investigated accordingly .

[39] Vusi Mthiyane (“Mthiyane”) testified in respect of counts 22, 23 and 24. On 15
January 2022 , at about 22h00 , Mthiyane was with the deceased , Sibonelo Gumede ,
at Kwamasango bus stop Kwasomkhele, Mtubatuba. They were sitting and
conversing inside a motor vehicle when a white Audi with hash back and registration
number that ends with the letter “G” drove past them and then reversed towards
them. A black male who was wearing a Sangoma head gear which had tussle and
a sarong exited the vehicle and came to them. That man knocked at the dr iver’s
window side. He then pulled out a gun, then Mthiyane and the deceased came out of
the vehicle. Mthiyane grabbed the assailant with the Sangoma head gear that he
was wearing. They both fell down to the ground. Other men came out from the
white Audi vehicle and fired gunshots at them. Mthiyane then ran away and hid at a
nearby house. The deceased could not run away because he was crippled on his
leg.

[40] Mthiyane used a cell phone and called the police. On arrival of the police at
the scene Mthiyan e went back and found that Sbonele Gumede was already lying

dead on the ground. The vehicle, a white polo with Eswatini registration, had been
stolen during the incident.

[41] On 16 January 2022 , Velenkosini Sibiya , a police officer at KwaMsane
attended a crime scene at Masango bus stop where the deceased Gumede was
murdered. He found a Sangoma head gear on the floor, 14 empty cartridges of a
riffle and 25 x 9mm empty cartridges. On same date , Captain Minenhle Ngwane ,
from the South African Police Service s Local Criminal Record Centre attended the
scene. She collecte d 14 empty cartridges of a rifle, 25 x 9mm empty cartridges of
9mm pistol and sen t them to Amanzimtoti for ballistic examination.

[42] Sergeant Sabelo Derrick Mantengu was informed by members o f Empangeni
South African Police Services that the suspects who were found in possession of the
white Polo vehicle , that was stolen when Gumede was murdered at Masango bus
stop, were in custody for another matter at Empangeni. He went to Empangeni
Police S tation and informed accused 1 and 2 of their constitutional rights and
charged them accordingly. The accused did not make any statement regarding their
involvement to the offences. They mentioned that they will make statement in court.

[43] At the end of the State’s case , accused 1 did not testify, accused 2 and 4
testified in their defence. Accused 2 denied that he was involved in the commission
of any of the offences. He denied that he was present or that he killed the deceased
or that he a ttempted to murder Kheswa at Vuka Enterprise . He further denied that
he travelled with Mr Mhlongo to KwaNongoma on or about 15 January 2022 or that
he participated in the murder of Sbonelo Gumede, the shooting of Mr Mthiyane, and
the robbery of the latter ’s motor vehicle at KwaMasango bus stop, Somkhele,
Mtubatuba. Accused 2 similarly denied involvement in the murder of the deceased at
Myingazi, Nseleni, and the murder and attempted murder of Busizwe Ngcobo and
Nonkululeko Mthimkhulu, respectively, at Nsel eni Township, Empangeni. He denied
possession of any unlicensed firearms or ammunition. In respect of his possession of
the motor vehicle belonging to the deceased, Goqo, accused 2 stated that he had
informed the police he had received the vehicle from a c ertain Peter Hlabisa. He
claimed that at the time of his arrest, he had been drinking with a friend at his uncle’s

residence in Ntshawini and was on his way to a bottle store to purchase more
alcohol.

[44] Accused 4 likewise denied that he was involved in any of the alleged
offences. He denied that on or about 15 January 2022 he went with Mhlongo to his
homesteads at KwaNongoma and that he was present , killed, the deceased
Gumede, shot Mthiyane and took the motor vehicle from Mthiyane at Masango bus
stop. H e denied that he was present, kidnapped Nkomonde, killed the deceased
Patricia Nkomonde and took away the vehicle from Nkomonde at Punters Hill. He
admitted that he was found in possession of Nkomnde’s vehicle; that he kept the
vehicle at another person’s parking in a flat at Morningside. He contended that he
received that vehicle from Phumlani Mthembu whom he knew from the taxi industry.
He did not enquire from him about ownership of the vehicle because he thought
Mthembu had received the vehicle from his employer who is a taxi owner.

[45] This th en brings the court to the State’s evidence concerning the chain of
custody and ballistic examination of firearms and cartridges. The defence did not
make any admissions. Therefore, the State had to lead evidenc e relating to the chain
on the counts of murder, that is , counts 2, 3, 6, 7,11,16, and 23. The defence
counsels did not dispute that the bodies of the deceased did not sustain any further
injuries from the scene of crime up to when the post -mortem examinations was
conducted on them. The post -mortem reports showing the injuries and causes of
death to the deceased were handed in with no objection from the defence counsels.

[46] The State further led evidence relating to collection of empty cartridges from
the scenes of crime in respect of all the counts of murder and counts 12 and 13 of
attempted murder at Nseleni , Empangeni; the safe keeping of the cartridges and the
delivery thereof at Amanzimtoti for ballistic examination. Also, the State led evide nce
on the safe keeping of the firearm and ammunition found in possession of the
accused at Ntshawini and the delivery thereof at Amanzimtoti for ballistic
examination. It is not in dispute that some of the cartridges found at the scene where
Sbonelo Gumed e was killed at Kwasomkhele was ballistically linked to the 9mm
pistol found in possession of the accused 2. Some of the cartridges found on the
scene where Mthembu and Goqo were killed at Myingazi , Nseleni and some of the

cartridges found on the scene wh ere Ndiyaza was killed at Nselen township were
ballistically linked to the 9 mm pistol found in possession of the accused 2.

Legal principles

[47] I now turn to analysis of evidence and applicable legal principles. Apart from
the principle of common purpo se, the matter mainly involves evidence of an
accomplice, single witness, identification, circumstantial evidence, doctrine of recent
possession and dock identification. Generally, the principle of common purpose
entails the existence of an agreement among the accused persons to commit a
crime. It is trite, in the absence of prior agreement the doctrine of common purpose
attributed the criminal act of a person to another in the following instances: 2 In the
first place, the person must have been present at the scene where the violence was
being committed. Secondly, he must have been aware of the assault on the victims.
Thirdly, he must have intended to make common cause with those who were actually
perpetrating the assault . Fourthly, he must have manifested his sharing of a common
purpose with the perpetrators of the assault by himself performing some act of
association with the conduct of the others. Fifthly, he must have had the requisite
mens rea ; so, in respect of the killing of the deceas ed, he must have intended them
to be killed, or he must have foreseen the possibility of their being killed and
performed his own act of association with recklessness as to whether or not death
was to ensure.

[48] The State relied solely on the evidence of Mr Mhlongo in proving that the
accused are members of a notorious gang. In proving membership of the accused to
a gang i t would be essential, for the state to prove a pattern of criminal gang activity;
that all the activities of such a gang was in furtherance of the gang’s activities and for
the benefit of that gang which results in criminal offences. Even if each member of
a gang were involved in different criminal activities, the state must show that the
charge(s) against each of the applica nts and the other accused constitutes a pattern
of criminal gang activity.3

2 S v Mgedezi and Others 1989 (1) SA 687 (A) at 705I -706B.
3 Williams and Others v Director of Public Prosecutions : Western Cape 2022 (2) SACR 481 (WCC )
para 76.


[49] Mr Mhlongo did not state how the gang aided each other in criminal activities
and how members benefitted from the criminal activity of other members. He did not
explain w hat was the criminal pat tern of the gang and the crimes they were
committing. Mr. Mhlongo stated that he earned a living through criminal activities and
met accused 2, 4, and other individuals not before the Court, whom he identified as
Nathi, Ngidi, Shimz a, Nqubeko, and Dlamini. According to Mhlongo, these
individuals were friends who socialized, drank together, and committed crimes
whenever the opportunity arose . The crimes they committed include housebreaking
and theft, robbery and hijacking. However, Mh longo only referred to a single
incidence involving him, accused 4 and Shimza in kidnapping, murder, and robbery
with aggravating circumstances at Punters Hill. Mhlongo stated that accused 1 was
not a member of the gang, accused 2 was a member of the gang, but he could not
refer to a single incidence where he committed offences together with accused 2.

[50] Mhlongo was an honest witness. He did not hide his own involvement in the
offences, however , his evidence on accused membership of does not satisfy th e
requirement for membership of gang. If the court find that the accused were
members of a gang each of the accused could be convicted on any offence
committed by a member of the gang if that offence relate to the activities of the gang.
By associating hi mself or herself or being a member of a gang that person
“established an active interest in the affairs and activities of such a gang, even
though he or she was not present at or participated in a specific activity of the gang
which resulted in a criminal offence committed in the name of that gang ”.4 Apart
from Mhlongo’s evidence that they would meet as friends, drink together and commit
crimes when opportunity prevail there is no evidence linking them as a gang such as
communication through cell phones a nd other means for purposes of committing
crime. Therefore, the accused membership of the gang was not investigated and
established by the state. For that reason, the state has not proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused were members of a notorious gang.


4 Ibid para 75.

[51] With regard to counts 2 and 3 , pertaining to the murder s of Velani Shezi and
Bhekani Mntungwa respectively, count 4, attempted murder of Mr Kheswa and count
5 robbery with aggravating circumstances at Vuka Enterprise, it is common cause
that Bafana Khuse is a single witness. It is trite that evidence of a single witness
must be treated with caution and the court may only convict on evidence of a single
witness if such evidence is clear and satisfactory in all material aspects.5
Furthermore, the court is mindful of the dangers inherent to the evidence of identity.
The principle relating to the evidence of identity was re -stated in Abdullah v S6 as
follows:

‘…It is not enough for the identifying witness to be honest. The reliability of his
identification must be tested against other factors such as lighting, visibility,
proximity of the witness and opportunity for observation.’ (Footnote omitted .)

[52] Bafana Khuse explained that he was familiar with accused 2 prior to the
shooting of the deceased , Shezi , at Vuka Enterprise. He had seen the accused and
communicated with him a week prior to the incident when accused 2 came to ask
whether they were selling silicon at Vuka Enterprise. When the counsel for accused
2 questioned Khuse about a statement he made t o the police, in which he mentioned
that accused 2 remained at the gate while the other suspects entered the
warehouse, Khuse denied this assertion. He clarified that, in his police statement, he
had stated that one of the individuals who had previously in quired about the silicon
had remained at the gate, but that accused 2 had entered the warehouse and shot
Shezi. It is trite that a court confronted with alleged contradiction must carefully
determine whether there is an actual contradiction and the contra dictory versions
must be considered on a holistic basis; the circumstances under which the versions
were made, the proven reasons for the contradictions, the actual effect of the
contradictions with regard to the reliability and credibility of the witness, the question
whether the witness was given sufficient opportunity to explain contradictions , and
the quality of the explanations , and the connection between the contradictions.7


5 S v Artman and Another 1968 (3) SA 399 (A).
6 Abdullah v S [2022] ZASCA 33 para 20.
7 S v Mafaladiso en andere [2002] ZASCA 92; [2002] 4 All SA 74 (SCA); 2003 (1) SACR 583 (SCA)
) 593F -594G.

[53] Khuse was a reliable witness. He answered all questions frankly and without
any hesitation. There was no self -contradiction in his evidence before Court. He
explained the contradictions between his police statement and version before Court
about the location wh ere accused 2 was waiting. In both the police statement and
evidence before Court he stated that accused 2 was present and participated in
committing the offences. He had mentioned in his statement to the police that he
was able to identify the accused. G iven Khuse’s explanation, the contradiction is not
material and does not affect his credibility on the identification of the accused as one
of the persons who was present and who committed the offences. His identification
of accused 2 at the identification parade support his version that he was able to
identify the accused.

[54] The identification of accused 1 on the dock by Mr Kheswa was not credible
and reliable. Kheswa did not see any of the accused at the scene of crime. His
recollection of accused 1 is based on a CCTV video footage that he viewed at the
scene of crime which was not retrieved and placed as evidence before court. There
is no evidence of the video footage before Court. Regarding accused 4 no evidence
was led implicating him to these cha rges.

[55] With regard to count 6 , the murder of Sandile Mthembu, count 7 the murder of
Mxolisi Goqo and count 8 pertaining to robbery with aggravating circumstances at
Myingazi, Nseleni, Empangeni , it is not in dispute that accused 2 was found driving
the vehicle that was stolen from the deceased Goqo shortly after he was murdered
on 28 January 2022 merely two days after the incident. The State proved that the
cartridges found at the scene of murde r was ballistically linked to have been fired
from the gun found in the possession of the accused 2. Accused 2 did not give
explanation of how he was in possession of the deceased vehicle, firearm and
ammunition to Colonel Herbs t who arrested him and to wa rrant officer Nhleko who
charged him .

[56] The doctrine of recent possession and circumstantial evidence link accused 2
to the commission of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The deceased vehicle
that was found in possession of the accused had been ro bbed from the deceased
recently for a period of one day prior to the arrest of the accused and the accused

did not give explanation of his possession of the stolen vehicle.8 Both Colonel Herbs t
and warrant officer Nhleko were credible witnesses. Nhleko informed the Court that if
the accused had given him an explanation about his possession of the vehicle he
would have followed that information.

[57] The cardinal rule regarding admission of cir cumstantial evidence was
established in R v Blom9 where it was held that the inference sought to be drawn
from the evidence must be consistent with all the proved facts and they should
exclude every reasonable inference from them save the one sought to be drawn. In
addition to being found in possession of the vehicle stolen from the deceased ,
accused 2 was found in possession of a gun which fired cartridges that were found in
the scene where the deceased was killed. The only reasonable inference to be
drawn that excludes all other inferences is that the accused participated in the
murder of the deceased.

[58] Regarding counts 11 the murder of Sphelele Ndiyaza, count 13 the attempted
murder of Xolani Mthimkhulu , the State proved that the cartridges found on the
scene of crime were ballistically linked t o have been fired from the gun found in the
possession of accused 2. Also, Busizwe Ngcobo and Nonkululeko Mthimkhulu were
shot by the assailants during that incident. Xolani Mthimkhulu identified accused 2 in
the dock in Court. He explained that he was n ot invited to identify accused 2 at the
identification parade and, if invited he would have identified the accused at the
parade. It is trite that a Court must exercise more caution when relying on the
identification of an accused by witnesses on the dock.10 However , being in
possession of the firearm which fired ammunition that killed the deceased the
previous day and unable to explain the possession thereof leaves the court with only
one reasonable inference, that is the accused participated in the murder of the
deceased.

[59] In count 14 the kidnapping of Emmanuel Nkomonde, count 15 the robbery
with aggravating circumstances and count 16 the murder of Patricia Sibongile

8 S v Screech 1967 (2) SA 407 ( E) at 409.
9 R v Blom 1939 AD 188 at 202 -203.
10 Naki v S (A257/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 509 para 8.

Nkomonde , the State based its case mainly on the evidence of an accomplice , Mr.
Mhlongo, the co mplianant Nkomonde and circumstantial evidence relating to
possession of the vehicle by the accused 4. It is trite that evidence of an accomplice
is treated with caution as was explained in S v Hlaphezulu11 as follows:12

“It is well settled that the testimony of an accomplice requires particular
scrutiny because of the cumulative effect of the following factors. First, he is a
self-confessed criminal. Second, various considerations may lead him falsely
to implicate the accused, for example, a desire t o shield a culprit or,
particularly where he has not been sentenced, the hope of clemency. Third,
by reason of his inside knowledge, he has a deceptive facility for convincing
description – his only fiction being the substitution of the accused for the
culprit. Accordingly . . . there has grown up a cautionary rule of practice
requiring (a) recognition by the trial court of the foregoing dangers, and (b) the
safeguard of some factor reducing the risk of a wrong conviction, such as a
corroboration implicating the accused in the commission of the offence, or the
absence of gainsaying evidence from him, or his mendacity as a witness, or
the implication by the accomplice of someone near or dear to him… ”

Therefore, this Court is required to warn itself of the danger inherent in the evidence
of an accomplice and convict only in clearer cases bearing in mind that the burden of
proof is on the state to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.13

[60] Mhlongo’s evidence that accused 4 is one of the assailants is corroborated by
Emmanual Nkomonde on material respects. Both Mhlongo and Nkomonde testified
that accused 4 drove the vehicle from the scene of crime, they both testified that
after Nkomonde was kidnapped he was driven to KwaMashu and dropped there. The
names of the other suspects including Shimza and Ntshebe which is the nickname
for accused 4 that was mentioned by Mhlongo was overhead by Nkomonde in the
vehicle when the assailants were talking to each other. Accused 4 was referred to as
Ntshebe. Mhlongo testified that he knew accused 4 from Kwa Mashu hostel.

11 S v Hlap hezulu and Others 1965 (4) SA 439 (A)
12 Ibid at 440.
13 R v Ngamtweni and Another 1959 (1) SA 849 (A) at 897G -898D ,

Accused 4 denied that he knew Mhlongo, however , the information he gave to the
police is that he was residing at KwaMashu hostel. In Court, accused 4 stated that
he was staying nearer Kwa Mashu hostel. Therefore, if Mhlongo had not known
accused 4 he would not have known that he lived at the KwaMashu hostel.

[61] After the Audi A3 vehicle was stolen from Nkomonde , accused 4 kept it at
another flat at Morningside for about a month. It is not in dispute that he was found
in possession of the Nkomonde’s vehicle. Although Nkomonde was not invited to
identify accused 4 at the identification parade , he was able to identify him in the dock
in Court. He explained that accused 4 was the most aggressive person. He is the
person who angrily looked at him and told him to pray before they would kill him.
There were streetlights at KwaMashu and there was light at the garage where the
vehicle had stopped at KwaMashu. Therefore, he was able to identify the accused.
Although dock identification of the accused by Nkomonde does not carry much
weight, the fact that he is able to identi fy him among other accused in the dock,
taken together with the eloquent and credible manner in which Nkomonde narrated
his version in court strengthen the reliability of his identification of the accused. If
accused 4’s version that he received Nkomonde’ s vehic le from Mthembu who he
thought had received it from his employer was correct, he would not have kept the
vehicle with him for more than a month. He would have kept the vehicle at his
residence instead of hiding it somewhere else for about a month. Therefore, the
accused version is not reasonably possibly true. The only reasonable inference to
be drawn is that the accused killed Patricia Nkomonde, kidnapped Nkomonde and
robbed him of his vehicle.

[62] In count 17 which is robbery with aggravating circumstances of Nkosingiphile
Booi, the witness identified accused 1 at the identification parade. It is common
cause that the witness is a single witness, therefore his evidence should be treated
with caution. However , his versio n that he had seen the accused nearer to the scene
of crime prior to the incident is corroborated by the accused own version put by his
counsel to Booi that the accused said that there is a tavern in that area where the
robbery took place and according to the accused knowledge the light had not been
working in that area therefore, Booi could not have identified the accused. That
version corroborates the complainant that there was a tavern nearer the scene

where he was robbed and the accused used to sit ou tside that tavern. Booi was a
credible witness. There was no self - contradiction in his evidence.

[63] In count 18 regarding robbery with aggravating circumstances of Silindile
Khumalo and Jimmy, Khumalo’s husband identified accuse d 1 and another person
instead of accused 2 at the identification parade. However, i n the dock in court , he
identified both accused 1 and 2 as the assailants who robbed him. He knew accused
1 very well, he used to play soccer with him at Morning Side Village ground. He knew
him by his name as Tsepo. However, he did not know accused 2 that well, he only
knew him by sight . It is clear to me that the complainant was not certain about the
identity of accused 2, theref ore, his identification of accused 2 in the dock after
having identified a wrong person instead of accused 2 shows that he was not able to
identify accused 2 as one of the assailants. The accused had balaclavas, but they
had pulled them below their chin. H is identify of accused 1 is based on his prior
knowledge of the accused with whom he had played soccer. Unlike accused 2, he
even knew accused 1 by his name. Booi was a credible witness, with no self -
contradictions in his evidence.

[64] In count 21 of robbery with aggravating circumstances of the vehicle of Jerry
Mirrimi , accused 1 was identified by the complainant as one of the assailants who
got into the front seat of the vehicle after the other assailant had taken the vehicle
from him at gun point. T here was light in the tuck shop that enabled the complainant
to identify the accused . The complainant was a credible witness, he did not make
any contradictions on his evidence.

[65] At the end of the State’s case , accused 1 did not testify in respects of counts
17, 18 and 21 against him. It is trite that the accused person has the right to remain
silence. However, the fact that an accused person is under no obligation to testify
does not mean that there are no cons equences attaching to a decision to remain
silent during the trial. If there is evidence calling for an answer, and an accused
person chooses to remain silent in the face of such evidence, a court may well be
entitled to conclude that the evidence is suffi cient in the absence of an explanation to

prove the guilt of the accused.14 In the light of the uncontradicted evidence of the
complainants against accused 1 in counts 17, 18 and 21 and their ability to identify
the accused at the identification parade , I am convinced that there is sufficient
evidence before court that accused1 committed the offences in counts17, 18 and
21.

[66] Regarding counts 19 of robbery with aggravating circumstances of the motor
vehicle of Dhanasagaren Naidoo and count 20 Robbery with aggravating
circumstances at the bottle store of Appalsamy Ramadu the complainants in both
counts did not attend court, therefore no evidence was placed in court about the
commission of these offences.

[67] Regarding count 22 of robbery with aggravating circumstances of the VW
white Polo from Vusi Mthiyane, count 23 of murder of Sbonelo Gumede and count
24 the attempted murder of Vusi Mthiyane at KwaSomkhele, Mtubatuba. the
presence of accused 4 and 2 at the scene of crime is corroborated by the evidence
of Mhlongo that accused 4 was driving the white hash back Audi A3 with number GP
when he left his homestead at Nongoma with accused 2; that on their way back they
drove through Mfolozi game reserve towards Mtubatuba; t hat accused 2 was
wearing a Sangoma head gear. Mhlongo’s evidence is corroborated by Mthiyane
who s tated that the assailants were driving a white hash back Audi vehicle, that one
of the assailants was wearing a sangoma gear which Mthiyane grabbed when he
fought with that assailant. The Sangoma head gear was found and picked up by the
police at the scene. The undisputed evidence in court is that the white hash back
Audi vehicle was in the possession of accused 4 since the commission of the
offences at Punter s Hill. He is the only person who was driving that vehicle and it
was found in his possession during his arrest.

[68] Furthermore, the vehicle that was stolen from Mthiyane at KwaSomkhele was
found in the possession of Mhlongo who was in company of accus ed 2 who was
driving another vehicle which was stolen at Nseleni. Finally, some of the cartridges
found on the scene where the deceased was shot at KwaSomkhele was ballistically

14 S v Boesak 2001 (1) SA 912 (CC) para 24 .

linked to the gun found in possession of accused 2. Therefore, the only reason able
conclusion that can be drawn is that accused 2 and 4 committed the offences at
KwaSomkhele Mtubatuba.

[69] With regard to count 25 of the possession of prohibited firearm, AK -47 and
count 26 the u nlawful possession of ammunition, although accused 1 was found in
the vehicle with Mhlongo where the firearms were found, Mhlongo testified that
accused 1 was not aware of the presence of the fire arm in the vehicle because. He
picked up accused 1 at Eshowe garage where he was hiking. Therefore, based on
the evidence of Mhlongo who is one of the reliable state witnesses, accused 1 could
not be found guilty of these offences. Apart from the suspicion that accused 2 was
aware of the presence of the AK -47 in the boot of the vehicle driven by Mhlongo,
there i s no evidence linking accused 2 to the possession of the firearm and
ammunition. No submission was made in court as to how accused 2 could be linked
to the possession of the AK -47 rifle and ammunition that was found in a vehicle
driven by Mhlongo separate to the vehicle driven by accused 2.

[70] This then brings me to the interlocutory applications brought by the State during
trial. The State applied to recall Warrant Officer Nzama and counsel for accused 1
opposed the application. The application to reca ll Nzama arose from the evidence of
Kheswa’s who revealed for the first time that there was a CCTV video footage that
he viewed at Vuka Enterprise where the offences of double murder was committed.
Nzama as the investigating officer did not say anything a bout the existence of the
video when he gave evidence in Court. It was clear to this Court that if Nzama was
not recalled to clarify the issue of the video footage, that would leave a gap in the
state case. The recalling of Nzama would not prejudice accuse d 1, because he
would be given an opportunity to cross examine Nzama. For that reason, the Court
granted the state leave to recall Nzama.

[71] The State applied for the warning statements made by accused 1 and 2 to be
admitted as evidence in Court. The nature of the evidence sought to be introduced
by the State is extra -curial statements purportedly made by the accused to the
investigating officer. Ge nerally, these statements are excluded unless it is proved
that they were made freely and voluntarily. The law regarding admissibility of these

statements was set out by Innes CJ in Rex v Barlin ,15 where it was stated as
follows:16“The common law allows no statement made by an accused person to be
given in evidence against himself unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been
freely and voluntarily made --- in the sense that it has not been induced by any
promise or threat proceeding from a person in a uthority. ”
The police officers who took the statements from both accused were not
investigating officers in these cases. They testified that they read the constitutional
rights of the accused to them before the accused made the statements. Both
accused si gned the proforma documents containing their constitutional rights that
were red to them, and they also signed the statements. The statements by the
accused were intended to be completely exculpatory. They do not amount to
admission or confession, they mer ely show that the accused new other people who
were implicated in the commission of the offences. I ruled that the statements were
admissible because they were made by the accused freely and voluntarily.

[72] The State made an application for admission of evidence of pointing out by
accused 4. The main purpose of adducing the evidence of pointing was to prove that
the pointing out amount to a confession by the accused. There was no evidence of
anything discovered as a result of the pointing out . Section 217 of the CPA which
governs confessions provides that:

“(1) Evidence of any confession made by any person in relation to the
commission of any offence shall, if such confession is proved to have been
freely and voluntarily made by such person in his sound and sober senses
and without having been unduly influenced thereto, be admissible in evidence
against such person at criminal proceedings relating to such offence:
Provided -
(a) that a confession made to a peace officer, other than a magistrat e or
justice, or, in the case of a peace officer referred to in section 334, a
confession made to such peace officer which relates to an offence with
reference to which such peace officer is authorized to exercise any power
conferred upon him under that se ction, shall not be admissible in evidence

15 R v Barlin 1926 AD 459.
16 Ibid at 462 .

unless confirmed and reduced to writing in the presence of a magistrate or
justice.
(b) that where the confession is made to a magistrate and reduced to
writing by him, or is conferred and reduced to writing in t he presence of a
magistrate, the confession shall upon the mere production thereof at the
proceedings in question -
(i) …
(ii) be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, to have been freely and
voluntarily made by such person in his sound and sober senses and without
having been unduly influenced thereto, if it appears from the document in
which the confession is contained that the confession was made freely and
voluntarily by such person in his sound and sober senses and without having
been unduly influenced thereto. ”

[73] Warrant Officer Nzama who detained accused 4 in a police cells on 15
January 2022 testified that the accused had no injuries when he was detained by
him. On 16 January 2022 , Constable Olivier who received accused 4 from Mayville
police cells and took him to Colonel Vezi who th en conducted the pointing out,
observed that the accused had injuries. Warrant Officer Nqobile Mzimela who is
attached to the provincial task team received accused 4 from Sergeant Jila who had
booked him out for investigation. She took accused 4 to a medic al doctor prior to him
being taken to the pointing out. After the accused had made the pointing out he was
taken by Sergeant Jila to a medical doctor for examination. Sergeant Jila was one of
the investigating officers in this matter. He is also attached a t provincial task team
where Mzimela who took the accused to the doctor prior to the pointing out is also
working. Clearly the participation by one of the investigating officers to the pointing
out indicates that the process of the pointing out was irregul ar.

[74] The medical doctor who examined the accused prior to the pointing out noted
some injuries on the accused wrists and ankles which he opined might have been
caused by handcuffs and legs irons. The doctor further noted tenders on the chest
and on th e back of the accused. The doctor who examined the accused after the
pointing out recorded that the accused reported to him that he was assaulted by the
police who were investigating this matter. At the hearing of this application, I invited

the state coun sel to look at the doctors reports and decide whether this application
would advance his case in any way. Nevertheless, the state called the medical
doctor who confirmed that the tender on the chest and back of the accused might
have been caused by assault upon the accused. In the light of the overwhelming
evidence that the accused was detained the previous day with no injuries and when
he was taken to the pointing out the following day he had sustained injuries .
The State has not proved that the pointing out was made freely and voluntarily by the
accused. The version of the accused that he was assaulted by the investigating
officer is further corroborated by the medical reports compiled by the doctors who
examined the accused. For these reasons , I ruled t hat the evidence of pointing out
by accused 4 was inadmissible.

[75] The state made an application for admission of statements by some of the
complainants and witnesses in terms of s 3(1) (c) of the Law of Evidence Amendment
Act 45 of 1988 (“the LEAA” ). The application is based on the ground that the
witnesses fear for their lives to come and testify in Court. It is appropriate to refer to s
3 of the LEAA which reads:

“(3)(1) Subject to the provisions of any other law, hearsay evidence shall not
be admitted as evidence at criminal or civil proceedings, unless -
(c) the court, having regard to -
(i) the nature of the proceedings;
(ii) the nature of the evidence;
(iii) the purpose for which the evidence is tendered;
(iv) the probative value of the evid ence;
(v) the reason why the evidence is not given by the person upon whose
credibility the probative value of such evidence depends;
(vi) any prejudice to a party which the admission of such evidence might
entail; and
(vii) any other factor which should i n the opinion of the court be considered, is
of the opinion that such evidence should be admitted in the interests of
justice. ”


[76] Some of the witnesses, Appalsamy Ramadu and Dhanasagren Naidoo closed
their businesses, left Durban and relocated to Gauteng after they were robbed at gun
point by the assailants. After Mkhimkhulu and Ngcobo were shot at Nseleni they left
the area for hiding to other areas. Mthimkhulu’s fear is further based o n the facts that
accused 2’s friends who are also involved in criminal activity at Nseleni know her.
Accused 2 frequently visits them at Nseleni and if she were to testify she fears for
her life. It is instructive, in a criminal proceeding the accused has a right to a fair trial
which includes the right to adduce evidence and challenge evidence against them.17

[77] In instances such as the present where the witnesses are unable to testify for
fear of their lives the law make provision in terms of s 158 r ead with s 153 of the
CPA for the witnesses to give evidence by means of closed -circuit television or
similar electronic media. The State did not make an application for the witness to
give evidence in that manner. The right afforded to the accused person to confront
the witnesses and challenge their evidence should not be dispensed with easily
where the witnesses are available and the law make provision for them to give
evidence in other manner other than in an open court. In my view s 3 of the LEAA
does n ot permit a short cut for the State to dispense with oral evidence of witnesses
in instances where the law provides for other means in which the witnesses can give
evidence orally. For these reasons , I dismissed the application.

[78] After hearing the e vidence of the investigating officer about the fear of the
witnesses to come to Court and give evidence orally, the Court was satisfied that the
fear of the witnesses was real. For that reason, the court mero motu gave an order
that these witnesses may te stify by means of a closed circuit or similar electronic
media. However, the State counsel informed the court from the bar that the State is
unable to trace these witnesses.

[79] It is worth mentioning that after hearing evidence during the trial, the Court
raised some concerns about the fact that the evidence before Court revealed that
some of the complainants and witnesses were shot except for charges of robbery, no
charges of attempted murder were put against the accused. In this regard , the

17 See fn 1 above.

evidence reveals that when the offences were committed at Vuka Enterprises, shots
were also fired at Khuse, but no charge of attempted murder of Khuse was put to the
accused; when Nkosingiphile Booi was robbed of his vehicle, he was shot and
sustained s erious injuries, but no charge of attempted murder of Booi was put to the
accused ; when Slindile Khumalo was robbed at her house her husband Jimmy was
shot on the leg and the bullet went through his leg, but no charge of attempted
murder of Jimmy was put to the accused.

[80] The Court enquired from the investigating officer Sergeant Mnguni while he
was on the witness stand about these charges. Mnguni informed the Court that these
charges were contained in the docket. During address for judgment , the State’s
counsel informed the Court that the State had some difficulties in putting some of the
charges against the accused where people were shot because the State was not
able to locate the complainants’ medical records relating to these charges. Without
under -estimating the great work done by all parties involved in the criminal justice
system to eradicate crime, given the rate of intimidation to witnesses and fear
instilled to them not to come forward to report crime and testify in Court, failure to
pay adequate attention to the complainant’s matters is likely to discourage
complainants to participate positively in the criminal justice system. The community,
including the complainants, places significant trust in the criminal justice system,
expec ting that their cases will be thoroughly investigated, appropriately presented in
court, and impartially adjudicated by the presiding judicial officers. I have already
stated above that the State has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused ar e guilty of count 1. Furthermore , there is no evidence that link accused 1
to counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 .
Therefore he ought to be acquitted of these charges . The State has proved beyond
a reasonable d oubt that accused 1 committed the offences in counts 17,18 and 21.
The State has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that accused 2 committed the
offences in counts 14,15,16,17, 18, 19, 25 and 26. Accused ought to be acquitted of
these offences. However, the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
accused 2 committed the offences in counts 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 22,
23 and 24 and that he ought to be found guilty of these charges. The State has not
proved beyond a reasonable doubt that accused 4 committed the offences in
counts 2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25 and 26. However , the

State has proved beyond a rea sonable doubt that accused 4 committed the offences
in counts ,14,15,16, 22, 23 and 24.

Order

[81] In the premises , the following order is made;

1. Accused 1 is found not guilty of counts1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26.
2. Accused 1 is found guilty on counts 17, 18 and 21 regarding robbery with
aggravating circumstances
3. Accused 2 is found not guilty of counts 1 , 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25
and 26.
4. Accused 2 is found guilty of count 2 regarding the murder of Velani Shezi,
count 3 the murder of Bhekani Mntungwa; count 4 attempted murder of
Kheswa; count 5 robbery with aggravating circumstances at Vuka Enterprise,
count 6 the murder of Sandile Mthembu; count 7 the murder of Mxolisi Goqo;
count 8 rob bery with aggravating circumstances, count 9 the unlawful
possession of a prohibited fire arm; count 10 Unlawful possession of
ammunition; count 11 the murder of Sphelele Ndiyaza; count 12 attempted
murder of Busizwe Goodwill Ngcobo; count 13 attempted mu rder of
Nonkululeko Mthimkhulu; count 22 robbery with aggravating circumstances at
KwaSomkhele; count 23 the murder of Sbonelo Gumede and count 24
attempted murder of Vusi Mthiyane.
5. Accused 4 is found not guilty of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 ,25 and 26 . Accused 4 is found guilty of count 14 the
kidnapping Nkomonde, count 15 the robbery with aggravating circumstances ;
count 1 6 murder of Patricia Nkomonde ; count 22 robbery with aggravating
circumstances, count 23 murder of Sbonelo Gumede and count 24 attempted
murder of Vusi Mthiyane.

Sentencing


[82] Accused 1 is convicted of three counts of robbery with aggravating
circumstances. Accused 2 is convicted of six counts of murder, four counts of
attempted murder , three counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances, one
count of unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm, and one count of unlawful
possession of ammunition. Accused 4 is convicted of two counts of murder, one
count of attempted murder, one coun t of kidnapping, and one count of robbery with
aggravating circumstances.

[83] The offences for which the accused have been convicted of fall within the
ambit of offences in respect of which the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997
has prescribed minimum sentences. Accordingly, t he court is required to impose the
prescribed minimum sentence unless substantial and compelling circumstances exist
that would warrant deviation. In determining whet her such substantial and
compelling circumstances exist, the court must consider all relevant factors ,
including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the personal circumstances of
the accused, the presence of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the broader
needs of the society .18 The court is only entitled to deviate from the prescribed
minimum sentence and impose a lesser sentence if it is satisfied that , in a particular
case , the factors render the prescribed sentence unjust in that it would be
disproportionate to the crime, the criminal and the needs of the society, so that an
injustice would be done.19

[84] The personal circumstances of the accused, as placed on record by their
counsel, are as follows:

(a) Accused 1 is 33 years of age . He has attained an educational level of Grade
11. At the time of his arrest , he was employed part -time at Sunshine Bakery in
Springfield , earning a salary of R7 500 per month . He is unmarried and has
one child, aged nine years old , whom h e was supporting at the time of his
arrest . He has no previous convictions.
(b) Accused 2 is 26 years of age . He also attained an education al level Grade
11. He is unmarried and has one child, aged five years old. At the time of

18 S v Vilakazi 2009 (1) SACR 552 (SCA) para 15.
19 S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) at 482.

arrest, he was self -employed as a street vendor , earning an income of
approximately R900 per day . He has no previous convictions.
(c) Accused 4 is 35 years of age and has an education al level of Grade 9 . He is
unmarried and has four minor children; whom he was financially supporting .
At the time of his arrest , he was employed part-time as a taxi driver , earning
a salary of R1200 per week . He too has no previous convictions.

[85] The nature and circumstances of the crimes committed by the accused
demonstrate a profound disregard for human life and complete insensitivity to the
suffering of others. The brutality displayed in the commission of these crimes
suggests that the accused have become desensitised to inflicting har m on other
human beings. In all the three counts of robbery involving accused 1, a firearm was
used. In two of these counts, he shot and wounded the complainants before
dispossessing them of their goods. One of the complainants was assaulted and
robbed in the sanctity of her house, while she was unwinding by watching an
episode on TV. The accused introduced themselves as police officers in order to
deceive the complainant to give them entry into her house. In all the counts of
robbery committed by accuse d 2 and 4, they used firearms and killed occupants of
the motor vehicles before taking the vehicles away. At Punters Hill, the wife of the
complainant, Mr Nkomonde, was shot and killed in his presence . He was then
kidnapped by the accused and was rendere d unable to give attention to his wife,
who was left lying helplessly on the ground. At Vuka Enterprises, the victims were
shot and killed even though they did not give any form of resistance to the accused.
At KwaSomkhele Mtubatuba, the accused shot and killed Gumede, who was
disabled and was unable to outrun the accused. At Nseleni Myingazi, the two friends
were killed while they were conversing at the butchery. Another person was killed at
Nseleni while protecting a girl child who was being chased by t he accused. This
incident further demonstrates the accused’s utter lack of compassion or humanity.
This conduct reflects a callous disregard for human life, treating the merciless
murders of a human being with the same indifference as other pe ople might show in
the slaughter of animals .

[86] It is evident from the victim impact statements submitted by the next of kin of
the deceased, as well as from the deceased family members, who broke down in

tears when testifying in court about the demise of thei r loved ones and that the
accused conduct left them devastated. The victims’ families still struggle to
comprehend a world without their loved one’s physical presence. Furthermore, the
evidence before court shows that some of the complainants who were sho t by the
accused and survived were so severely affected that they left their homes after the
incident and went into hiding. Two business persons, Naidoo and Ramadu,
immediately after they were attacked and robbed of their goods at gunpoint have
since permanently relocated to another province and declined to testify in court. This
shows that the conduct of the accused in committing these offences constitutes the
greatest constraint in doing business in the province. The crimes committed do n ot
only negate economic growth; they contribute to the high rate of unemployment and
instil fear to the citizens of the Republic. The spree crimes was not isolated or
localised spanned across the province ranging from Durban to the far North at
Mkhanyakud e District, indicating an intentional and sustained operation of
lawlessness. It is therefore clear that the accused are a danger to the society and
pose a significant threat to public safety. The community looks up to the courts to
impose appropriate sent ences that will not only protect them from the accused, but
deter other people to commit crimes.

[87] The defence counsel correctly conceded that there are no substantial and
compelling circumstances that would entitle the court to deviate from the prescr ibed
minimum sentences. All three accused were majors when they committed the
offences. Currently, they are from 26 to 35 years of age. While they have been in
custody for approximately three years pending conviction, it is well -established that
time spent in detention before sentencing, while relevant, does not in and of itself
constitute a substantial and compelling circumstance warranting deviation from the
statutory minimum sentences .20 The accused did not show any remorse for their
actions. The accus ed personal circumstances cumulatively taken are not substantial
and compelling circumstances. The gravity of the offences committed far outweigh
the accused personal circumstances. Therefore, I find that there is no justification for
the court to deviate from the mandatory minimum sentences.


20 S v Radebe and Another 2013 (2) SACR 165 (SCA).

Order

[88] In the premises, I make the following order:

1. Accused 1 is sentenced as follows:
1.1. 15 years’ imprisonment in respect of count 17 ;
1.2. 15 years’ imprisonment in respect of count 18 ; and
1.3. 15 years’ imprisonment in respect of count 21 .
The sentences are to run cumulatively , resulting in a total effective sentence of
45 years’ imprisonment .
2. Accused 2 is sentenced as follows:
2.1. Life imprisonment in respect of count 2 ;
2.2. Life imprisonment in respec t of count 3 ;
2.3. Five years’ imprisonment in respect of count 4 ;
2.4. 15 years’ imprisonment in respect of count 5 ;
2.5. Life imprisonment in respect of count 6 ;
2.6. Life imprisonment in respect of count 7 ;
2.7. 15 years’ imprisonment in respect of count 8 ;
2.8. 15 years’ imprisonme nt in respect of count 9 ;
2.9. Two years’ imprisonment in respect of count 10 ;
2.10. Life imprisonment in respect of count 11 ;
2.11. Five years’ imprisonment in respect of count 12 ;
2.12. Five years’ imprisonment in respect of count 13 ;
2.13. 15 years’ imprisonment in respect of count 22 ;
2.14. Life imprisonment in respect of count 23 ; and
2.15. 15 years’ imprisonment in respect of count 24 .
The sentences imposed in respect of counts 4, 5, 8, 9, 1 0, 12, 13, 22, 23, and 24
shall run concurrently with the sentence imposed in count 2 .
3. Accused 4 is sentenced as follows:
3.1. Five years’ imprisonment in respect of count 14 ;
3.2. 15 years’ imprisonment in respect of count 15 ;
3.3. Life imprisonment in respect of count 16 ;
3.4. 15 years’ imprisonment in respect of count 22 ;
3.5. Life imprisonment in respect of count 23 ; and

3.6. 15 years’ imprisonment in respect of count 24 .
The sentences imposed in respect of counts 14, 15, 22, and 24 shall run
concurrently with t he sentence imposed in count 16 .


________________
Mathenjwa J


Date of hearing: 14 April 2025 to 6 June 2025
Date of Judgment: 17 June 2025
Date of sentence: 20 June 2025

Appearances:

Counsel for Accused 1: Adv. A Mahomed -Essop
Instructed by: Legal Aid
Durban
Counsel for Accused 2: Adv. J Malinga
Instructed by: Legal Aid
Durban
Counsel for Accused 4: Adv. T R Mthembu
Instructed by: Legal Aid
Durban

Counsel for the State: Adv. B Vika
Instructed by: Director of Public Prosecutions