1

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
HELD AT PALM RIDGE

Case No: SS 77/2024
DPP Ref: 10/2/11/1-2024/52
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
4 AUGUST 2025

In the matter between:

THE STATE

V

M[…], J[…] K[…] Accused


JUDGMENT


MAHOMED J:

BACKGROUND

[1] The accused is charged with two counts, count 1 murder read with the
provisions of section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 and

2

read with part of Schedule 2 of the Act and count 2 assault with intent to do grievous
bodily harm read with s 51(2) and part lll of schedule 2 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act 105 0f 1997. He pleaded guilty to the charges and filed a statement
in support of his guilty plea, in terms of section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act
51 of 1977, (“the Act”), marked as exhibit A. However, the state did not accept his
plea explanation which was admitted in terms of s220 of the Act.

[2] In his plea statement the accused denied the state’s allegations that the
murder was premediated and stated that he was trying to fend off the deceased after
she grabbed him and she was stronger than him.

[3] He stated that the deceased was his girlfriend and that on the night of 24
February 2024, in Clayville in the magisterial district of Johannesburg North, he
murdered the deceased. He stated that they together with their three children,
returned home late that night after visiting a friend, they drank alcohol with him. He
stated that the deceased was unhappy with his having gone to the local tavern with
his friend that night, she was concerned that they would both fraternize with other
women. They argued about this and the deceased threw a glass at him, which he
managed to avoid as it shattered against the wall. He stated that she was stronger
than him and she pushed him against the kitchen sink, he saw a knife nearby and
stabbed her several times, as she was clinging onto him and when she collapsed, he
was freed from her grip. He admitted that his actions were intentional and that he did
foresee her dying when he stabbed her but nevertheless continued. The forensic
evidence was not disputed, the report stated that the deceased was stabbed 15
times. He stated that he injured the deceased’s minor child L[...] R[...] after he
wielded a knife at him, whilst L[...] tried to disarm him of the knife, the minor child
sustained a cut to his hand and suffered grievous bodily harm. He admitted his

sustained a cut to his hand and suffered grievous bodily harm. He admitted his
actions were unlawful and intentional, he stated that he is remorseful. He stated that
the security officers at their property tried to enter their home when he arrived to
investigate a report from neighbors’ and he tried to prevent them from entering when
a scuffle broke out and the accused injured himself with the knife he was holding. He
denied that the murder was premediated as alleged by the state and on his version,
he was in a rage from the argument and killed the deceased with the knife he found
in the kitchen.

3


The State’s Case

[4] The state rejected the plea explanation and submitted the murder was
premeditated. The state called three witnesses, a Mr. Tsitiso Hoffman, the security
guard on duty at their apartment block and the deceased’s two children, L[...], who
was 13 years old and L[...] who was 10 years old. Their younger sibling O[...] was 3
years old at the time and slept in the deceased’s bedroom.

L[...] M[…]

[5] I was satisfied that the minor child understood the meaning of taking the oath
and its implications, he testified through an interpreter who was duly qualified and
was duly sworn in. L[...] testified that he was 13 years old and that the deceased was
not his biological mother, but his late mother’s sister. She treated him as her child
and he accepted her as his mother. He testified the accused is not his father, he
called him uncle.

[6] He testified that they had returned home late on 24 February 2024 from their
friend’s, home. He was about to fall asleep when he heard his mother and the
accused, whom he referred to as uncle K[…], arguing. The accused shouted that the
deceased was cheating on him , he heard her deny that she was cheating and she
shouted at the accused to call the person and confirm his accusations . He testified
that he heard the accused shout at the deceased that he was going to kill her and he
did not care if anyone called the police.

[7] In his statement to the police he stated that he left his room to investigate
what was going on, when the accused shouted at him and told him that the was also
going to deal with him, the accused shouted an expletive about his private parts.
L[...] testified that at that point he was afraid and he returned to his room. The
accused then shouted out to him and L[...] and called them to the dining room, they
both approached him when he told them that he was going to kill their mother and
himself and that they both will be left on their own. He heard his mother shout to him

himself and that they both will be left on their own. He heard his mother shout to him
to call for help at which point the accused ordered them to leave their cellphones on

4

the couch. When he approached the kitchen, he saw his mother M[…] M[…], lying
near the fridge in a pool of blood and saw her gagging.

[8] It is not in dispute that the accused brandished the knife about in L[...]’s
direction, and L[...] was injured when he tried to disarm him, and the accused cut him
across both his palms as he tried to grab the knife. He was injured between the left
thumb and index finger.

[9] He testified that he saw the security person at their door trying to access their
home, when the accused refused to open the door. The security guard struggled with
the gate but managed to open the door to their home. They instructed him to return
to his room. The accused ordered him back, grabbed him and thereafter he fell in the
deceased’s blood on the kitchen floor. He had soiled his pants from the blood. He
testified that the accused tried to slit his throat, and testified that he only cut himself
at his upper throat after he killed the deceased.

[10] He denied that the deceased was the aggressor on that night. He heard glass
breaking in the kitchen and he heard the deceased shouting at him to call the police
as the man was hurting her. The witness identified the accused, sitting in the dock.

[11] During cross examination, the witness testified the accused was collected by
the deceased and aunt Latoya and her husband to join them to drinks. He testified
that the two males left to go out to the tavern. Counsel sought to discredit the
witness when he highlighted a variance in his evidence between his testimony in
court and his statement, exhibit E, to the police. The variance relates in the main on
who may have started the argument or fight. Counsel for the accused tried to
demonstrate that the accused’s version that the deceased was the aggressor. In my
view in the light of the plea explanation, the inconsistencies were not material having
regard to the main issue before this court. The court also noted that the incident

regard to the main issue before this court. The court also noted that the incident
occurred a long while ago and raised difficult memories for the witness who had lost
his “second mother”.

[12] The issue before this court is whether the murder was premeditated. The
witness conceded that he did not witness the stabbing but was sure that he heard his

5

mother move from her room to the dining room where the argument started and then
his mother and the accused moved to the kitchen. The witness was sure that the
accused started the fight. He testified that he enjoyed a healthy relationship with the
accused prior to the killing of his mother.

[13] In reexamination the witness confirmed that he heard the deceased shout out
“you are stabbing me.” The witness persisted with his earlier evidence that he was
called to the kitchen, he witnessed the deceased on the kitchen floor gasping for
breath and that the accused told all of them that he was going to kill their mother and
himself and they will all be left to fend for themselves.

L[...]

[14] The court was satisfied the minor child understood the taking of the oath and
he testified through a qualified intermediary. He testified that the deceased was his
biological mother, the accused was a friend to his mother, who visited their home
intermittently. On the night of the incident he returned with the family from friend’s
home and changed for bed. He testified that he was asleep when he was woken by
the sound of breaking glass coming from the direction of the door of his bedroom. He
shared his bedroom with L[...], who woke up and told him he was going to the
bathroom, he left the bedroom. The accused shouted that L[...] must return to the
bedroom, thereafter the accused insulted him by referring to his private parts.

[15] He heard the accused shout at the deceased that she wanted to fool him and
he called her names by referring to her private parts. This witness corroborated the
evidence of his older brother. He heard the accused telling his mother that she was
cheating on him. She told him to telephone the person to verify this accusation. The
accused assaulted his mother. He heard the pounding of fists and heard his mother
shouting at L[...] to call the police. Following this, the accused called L[...] and

shouting at L[...] to call the police. Following this, the accused called L[...] and
instructed him to place the phones on the couch. He called them told them he was
going to kill his mother and then himself and they would be left to fend for
themselves. He witnessed at the time that the deceased was on the kitchen floor in a
pool of blood. They returned to their room and he heard the accused assault his
mother further. He testified that when they were called the deceased was on the floor

6

and was still alive, she was gasping for breath. He testified that the accused
instructed L[...] to block the door to prevent the security from entering the home. The
security managed to enter their home and he instructed him and L[...] to go to the
neighbor’s home. The witness reluctantly agreed to point out the accused, he stated
that he “did not want to see his face.” The witness identified the accused sitting in the
courtroom through the glass window.

[16] He testified that the accused is O[...]’s father, O[...] was about three years old
when the incident happened. He was only an occasional visitor in their home. During
cross examination, the witness stated that his mother and the accused were drinking
alcohol at their friend’s home. The further testified that his saw his mother was still
alive, when he went to out of his room. During cross examination he testified that he
knew that the accused did not return with them to their home, but had gone out to
buy some ice, however he was still awake by the time the accused returned. The
state put no further question in reexamination.

TSITSO HOFFMAN

[17] He testified that on the night of 25 February 2024 he was on guard duty at the
building where the deceased lived, in Clayville Proteas. The deceased’s neighbors
reported to him at about 00h00 that they heard noise and shouting from the direction
of the deceased’s flat. He went on to investigate the cause of complaint when he
tried to enter and found the gate was locked, the door was unlocked, he identified
himself and he heard the deceased asking for assistance. He saw the deceased on
the floor, she threw out the house keys and she asked him for help because the
accused was hurting her and she was dying. He looked in and he noticed blood on
the accused’s clothes and saw blood stains on the wall and cupboards. He called for
backup as per his training. His support team attended on the scene. He testified that

backup as per his training. His support team attended on the scene. He testified that
the accused did not say anything to him nor asked him for any assistance.

[18] During cross examination he testified that he did not know how the door was
opened and when he returned with back up to the flat, he called out the deceased
but there was no response from her. The state posed no questions in reexamination.

7

The Defense case

[19] The accused did not testify and Mr. Ngxumza submitted that his client stood
by his plea explanation which was entered as his admissions in terms of s220 of the
Act. The defense did not call any witness.

[20] During cross examination, L[...], testified that both the deceased and the
accused drank alcohol that night at their friend’s home. Although he could not tell
how the fight started, he testified that he heard shouting from the deceased’s room
and then the sound of breaking glass. Counsel in his heads of argument and in cross
examination sought to establish that none of the state’s witnesses saw how the fight
or argument started and therefor the court must accept the accused’s version that
the deceased had overpowered him and he found the knife and stabbed and killed
the deceased, he did not plan the killing at all.

The Issue

[21] This court is to decide on the evidence before it if the murder was
premeditated.

Analysis.

[22] The photographs on file support the state’s version that the deceased was
dragged and assaulted. Her undergarment was torn, her T shirt was torn and she
appeared in semi state of dress. Her hair appeared to be pulled at and therefor
ruffled, she did not appear to be any larger or stronger than the accused. The court
rejects the accused’s version that she overpowered him and he found the knife and
stabbed her to free himself from her grip.

[23] The findings in the postmortem report, exhibit A31, were common cause and
it recorded that the deceased sustained 15 stab wounds over her face, shoulders,
chest and arms and the cause of death being penetrating incised wounds.
Photograph 9 includes the cutlery drawer on the floor, and a reasonable inference
can be drawn that the knife was “obtained from the drawer”, and is dispositive of the

8

accused’s version that he “found the knife in the sink” and picked it up and stabbed
the deceased multiple times as per the forensic report. I agree with counsel for the
state that he had the time to prepare for his attack. He had the presence of mind to
open a drawer, hard enough that it fell out and obtained the knife to execute his plan.
The court rejects his version that he “found a knife” and used it to murder the
accused, instead he formulated a plan, looked for a knife and executed his plan to
kill the deceased. In S v PM 2014 (2) SACR 481 (GP), the court stated:
“premeditation refers to something done deliberately after rationally
considering the timing or method of so doing, calculated to increase the
likelihood of success or to evade detection or apprehension.”

[24] I am of the view that the accused did in fact consider his method. The family
had returned late at night and all were preparing to retire for the night. L[...] testified
that he heard shouts outside his door, the deceased’s body was found in the kitchen,
where a knife would be found. The state submitted that the deceased’s condition
appeared as if she was dragged into the kitchen, where a knife can be found, to kill
her. It was not an act that was committed at the spur of the moment.

[25] The court is cognizant of the cautionary rules to be applied in accepting the
evidence of minor children and relatives. The children were logical, albeit the
defense raised inconsistencies between the statement that L[...] made to the police
with his evidence in court. However, when one has regard to the conspectus of the
evidence the inconsistencies are not material.

Reliability and Relevance

[26] The children were logical and were coherent. They corroborated one another,
that they heard the argument was about cheating, that they were ordered to put their
phones on the couch, that they were told he was going to kill their mother and they

phones on the couch, that they were told he was going to kill their mother and they
would be left alone, that the accused attempted to prevent the security guard from
entering their home. They both testified with ease and fluency on what they heard
and witnessed. The children did not waver in their evidence nor hesitate so as to
manufacture evidence. They appeared confident and answered with relevance and
directly to the questions put. The accused had the presence of mind to call the

9

children to the dining room, ordered them to put their cellphones on the lounge, told
them he was going to kill their mother and himself, told them they were going to be
left alone. His behavior demonstrated a thought-out plan to destroy all their lives.
L[...]’s evidence was that he saw the accused stab himself, but he was interrupted by
the arrival of the security guard.

The Law

[27] In our law, if a murder is premeditated the prescribed sentence is life
imprisonment.
In S v Raath 2009 (2) SACR 46 (C) planned or premeditated murder was described
as follows (p 53 para [16]):
‘Clearly the concept suggests a deliberate weighing-up of the proposed
criminal conduct as opposed to the commission of the crime on the spur of the
moment or in unexpected circumstances. There is, however, a broad
continuum between the two poles of a murder committed in the heat of the
moment and one which had been conceived and planned over months or
even years before its execution... Only an examination of all the
circumstances surrounding any particular murder, including not least the
accused’s state of mind, will allow one to arrive at the conclusion as to
whether a particular murder is ‘planned or premeditated’. In such an
evaluation the period of time between the accused forming the intent to
commit the murder and carrying out this intention is obviously of cardinal
importance but, equally, does not at some arbitrary point, provide a ready-
made answer to the question of whether the murder was ‘planned or
premeditated’.’ Raath was quoted with approval by the Supreme Court of
Appeal in Kekana v The State (629/2013) [2014] ZASCA 158 (1 October
2014).

[28] Premeditation involves a degree of planning that distinguishes it from crimes
of passion and accidental killings. The distinction between ‘planning’ and
‘premeditation’ was made on the basis of dictionary definitions in Raath supra and in
S v PM 2014 (2) SACR 481 (GP) where it was held that the concepts were distinct

S v PM 2014 (2) SACR 481 (GP) where it was held that the concepts were distinct
from each other – premeditation referring “ to something done deliberately after

10

rationally considering the timing or method of so doing, calculated to increase the
likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension” while planning refers to
“a scheme, design or method of acting, doing, proceeding or making which is
developed in advance as a process, calculated to optimally achieve a goal” (at para
[36]).

[29] In Raath supra, the court held that premeditation does not require long-term
planning but requires some measure of prior thought or consideration before the act
is committed. The court in this case explained that the premeditation can “happen
within minutes” if the suspect forms an intent before committing the act. If one has
regard to the distinction between premeditation and planning as set out in S v PM
supra, the evidence supports the finding I make that his actions were deliberate and
therefore premeditated. A court must have regard to the conspectus of the evidence
to determine the premeditated act. In this case, the argument was heated, the
deceased was challenging an accusation by the accused, the accused stated clearly
that he was going to kill her, they ended up in the kitchen where the cutlery drawer
was pulled out which dropped to the floor, he told the children he was going to kill
their mother and proceeded to further traumatize them by telling them they will be left
alone. In my view he had several opportunities to rethink his plan, he had the
presence of mind to order them to leave their cellphones on the couch, presumably
to prevent them from, calling for help or taking pictures of the scene. The accused’s
overall conduct supports the states argument that the murder was premeditated. In
DPP, Gauteng v Pistorius [2016] ZASCA 150, the SCA explained that even a short
period between forming the intent and carrying out the act can amount to
premeditation. In this case the court found that “retrieving a firearm from another
room before committing the crime can demonstrate premeditation.” In casu the

room before committing the crime can demonstrate premeditation.” In casu the
argument started out in the dining room, they moved to the kitchen where the cutlery
drawer was pulled out and dropped to the ground and where he obtained the knife
with which he stabbed the deceased multiple times. He cannot be said to have acted
in the heat of the moment, he processed in his mind the move to the kitchen, the fact
that the children would be left alone, he understood that if found out the police may
be called and he would be in trouble, he attempted to prevent the security guard who
would report his actions from entering the apartment. His actions align with his
earlier threats which demonstrate that he was carrying out a preconceived plan

11

rather than reacting in the heat of the moment. I considered the dicta in R v Blom
1939 AD 188 at 202, on the facts before me, all reasonable inferences may be
excluded, the accused’s words and actions matched. He planned and murdered the
deceased, the mother of the children whom he shared a home with, albeit
periodically.

[30] I considered the plea explanation and find that the accused has admitted to all
of the elements of the offence. For the reasons set out earlier, I find that the murder
was premeditated.

[31] Therefor the following verdict is made:
The accused is found guilty as charged on both counts, the murder was
premeditated.

Mahomed J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG

Date of hearing: 27 May 2025 until 22 July 2025
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2025

Appearances
For the state: Adv Phatlanyane
For the defense: Adv Ngxuma