Circulate to Judges: YES/NO
Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO
Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES/NO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
Case No: KS 3/2019
In the matter between:
MOTLALENTWA QHAUTSE 1 Applicant/Accused 2
LIZBETH NDLALA 2™4 Applicant/Accused 3
THEMBA LAWRENCE MAJA 3" Applicant/Accused 4
SAMSON SAM MBOKANE 4" Applicant/Accused 6
JABULANI WILSON ZUMA 5 Applicant/Accused 7
And
THE STATE Respondent
In re:
THE STATE
And
MORAPEDI RANKALI Accused 1
Page 1 of 17
MOTLALENTWA QHAUTSE Accused 2
LIZBETH NDLALA Accused 3
THEMBA LAWRENCE MAJA Accused 4
OUPA JEFFREY MAHOMANE Accused 5
SAMSON SAM MBOKANE Accused 6
JABULANI WILSON ZUMA Accused 7
Coram: Lever J
JUDGMENT — APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
LEVER: —<“itsOSSSOSS
1. This is an application for leave to appeal where only 5 of the 7 accused who
were convicted of various charges have applied for leave to appeal thus far.
The accused were convicted of various charges on the 4 March 2025 and
sentenced on the 11 March 2025.
2. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion I shall refer to the
applicants as they appeared in the trial itself as accused 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.
3. Accused 2 was convicted of housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery with
aggravating circumstances, sexual assault and murder. He was sentenced to 20
years imprisonment in respect of the conviction for housebreaking and
robbery, 5 years imprisonment in respect of the sexual assault conviction and
life imprisonment for murder. All of which to run concurrently with the life
sentence.
Page 2 of 17
4. Accused 3, 4, 6 and 7 were convicted of housebreaking with intent to rob and
robbery with aggravating circumstances. Accused 3, 4 and 6 were sentenced
to 10 years imprisonment. Accused 7 was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
5. Accused 2, 3, 6, and 7 seek leave to appeal both their convictions and
sentences.
6. Accused 4 seeks leave to appeal his sentence only.
7. Leave to appeal is regulated by section 17 (1) of the Superior Courts Act! (the
Act). The said section reads as follows:
“17(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges
concerned are of the opinion that —
(a)(i) the appeal would have a reasonable chance of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should
be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under
consideration; ...”
8. On the face of it, the wording of the said section, of the Act as quoted above,
indicates that the requirement for granting leave to appeal is thus more
stringent than was previously required. This is in fact what Bertelsmann J held
in the case of MONT CHEVAUX TRUST v TINA GOOSEN AND OTHERS?.
Bertelsmann J held that the test now is not whether another court might come
* Act 10 of 2013.
22014 JDR 2325 (LCC).
Page 3 of 17