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
EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, GQEBERHA

Case number: CC13/2025

In the matter between: -

THE STATE

And

L[...] L[...] Accused

______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT


Noncembu J

[1] Following the death of one N[...] D[...], an adult female (the d eceased), the
accused was indicted for murder, read with the provisions of section 51(1) of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, as amended by 15 (g) of the Criminal and
Related Matters Amendment Act 12 of 2021. He appears before this court on the sa id
charge. The allegation against him is that he unlawfully killed the deceased by stabbing
her with a knife and assaulting her with a wooden stick.

[2] He pleaded not guilty to the charge, alleging that he was acting in self -defense
when he stabbed and a ssaulted the deceased. Formal admissions in terms of section
220 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1 where the identity of the deceased, her age, and
the fact that her body sustained no further injuries from the time it was removed from
the crime scene, until Dr Jan Anthony De Beer conducted the post -mortem examination
on 19 August 2024, were made on his behalf, whereafter he confirmed the same. The
correctness of the photo album depicting the murder scene and the sketch and key
thereto were also admitted in the formal admissions, and they were marked as exhibit
“C”.

Evidence for the state

[3] The state tendered evidence of five witnesses: Kholiwe Bill, Akhona Bill,
Nobathembu Mthana, Sergeant Thango Luphondwana, who was the arresting officer,
and Dr De Beer, who conducted the post-mortem examination.

[4] Nothing turns on the evidence of the first two wi tnesses, except for two aspects:
that the accused had gone to Kholiwe’s house (first witness) looking for the deceased
the night before the deceased was killed, and that he was seen slapping the deceased
at a tavern on the same evening. This, of course, was denied by the accused.


1 Act 51 of 1977.

[5] The key and main witness for the state was Nobathembu Mthana, who is a
neighbour of the accused and has known the accused for more than 12 years. What
follows below is a summary of her evidence.

[6] On the night in question, she was sleeping at her house with her husband when
she was woken up by noise coming from the house of the accused. The area they live
in is comprised of informal dwellings, and her house is about 3 houses away from that
of the accused. She heard a continu ous banging sound, as if someone was hitting
something or someone continuously, and she could hear the accused shouting and
swearing at the deceased.

[7] She went to the accused’s house and shouted his name from the gate, which is
very close to the door o f the house. She shouted the accused's name, telling him that
she was going to blow a whistle, calling the community members if he did not stop
making noise, allowing them to sleep. The accused opened the top part of his door and
said that they were going to sleep. Indeed, the noise went quiet after that, and she went
to sleep with no further incidents until morning.

[8] Whilst she was by the accused’s house, other than her groanings, the only other
sound she heard from the deceased was her speaking in a s oft voice, as if she was
weak with no power, saying that she did not know what the accused was asking her
about.

[9] In the morning, they were busy repairing something outside her house with her
husband when the accused came to their yard. The accused ask ed her to download the
WhatsApp app on his phone. When she looked up at the accused, she noticed that he
was covered in blood all over his clothes. The socks, which he was wearing with flip -
flops, were drenched in blood, and all of his clothes were covere d in blood, which
appeared fresh. On seeing the condition of his clothing, she told the accused that he
had killed the deceased. The accused said that the blood on him was his, as the

had killed the deceased. The accused said that the blood on him was his, as the
deceased had stabbed him on the forehead. Her response to that was that the injury on

his forehead, which she described as a pimple due to its small size, could not have
resulted in so much blood. According to her, the blood on the accused’s face, which
purportedly was from the injury on his forehead, was dry, and yet his sock s and the rest
of his clothes were drenched in blood, indicating that it was still fresh.

[10] She left the accused with her husband and went to inform the community forum
members. When she came back with them, her husband, who was already coming from
the accused’s house, confirmed that the deceased was dead. She went and peeped
inside the house, where she saw the naked body of the deceased, with visible injuries
covered in blood, lying by the door. She confirmed the photo album depicting the
condition of the house, with everything inside covered in blood, including a basin which
had blood in it. She was told by the accused that the basin had been used to wash the
deceased, hence it had blood in it. Some community members who had attended the
scene assaulte d the accused, but they were quickly stopped by the other members of
the community. The police were called, and they took over the scene.

[11] According to her, the accused had assaulted the deceased on at least two
previous occasions. On one of these occ asions, the deceased had run to her place to
seek refuge being chased by the accused.

[12] Sgt Luphondwana attended the scene of crime after receiving a call regarding a
murder that had taken place at the accused’s house. He found the accused, who had
already been assaulted by community members, as well as the community members
who were in attendance at the scene. At the house, he found a knife which had blood
on it, hidden behind a cardboard box which was next to the wall. The deceased was
lying naked on her back next to the door with visible injuries. An ambulance was called,
and the deceased was declared dead, after which her body was taken by a mortuary

and the deceased was declared dead, after which her body was taken by a mortuary
van. He took the accused to the clinic for medical treatment, as he had an injury on his
head from the assault by the community members. From the clinic, he took the accused
to the police station, where he charged him and explained his constitutional rights. The
accused was thereafter detained in the police cells.

[13] Dr De Beer obtained an MBCHB Degre e from the University of Stellenbosch in
1995. From 1996, he worked as a medical doctor at various institutions. Currently, he is
working as a medical officer in pathology, where he has been doing pathological
examinations since 2011. He examined the body of the deceased on 19 August 2024
and compiled the post-mortem report, which recorded his findings.

[14] In the report, he recorded his findings as follows:

The chief post -mortem findings were a 3cm stab wound on the left upper
arm/shoulder region penetr ating into the left chest cavity and left lung, a
collapsed left lung, left -sided hemothorax (collection of blood in the chest cavity),
burst lacerations on the head with bleeding in the scalp, 2 brain edema, large
deep bruises over both upper legs and thi ghs, multiple stab wounds to the body,
limbs, and face, as well as pale internal organs. The cause of death was
determined to be sharp force injury to the chest, blunt force injury to soft tissue
with blood loss, and blunt force head injury.

[15] Under the external appearance of the body and condition of the limbs, he
recorded about 13 stab wounds, one of which was 15 cm deep, penetrating into the left
chest cavity and ending on top of the left lung; 3 burst lacerations, one of which was
8cm long; various other lacerations and wounds; a swollen face; large deep bruising,
and various abrasions on both legs, thighs and abdomen.

[16] The state’s case was thereafter closed, after which the accused took the stand
and tendered evidence in his defence. T he salient features of his evidence can be
summarised as follows:


2 Burst laceration described as a laceration ordinarily caused by a blunt object, as opposed to one caused
by a sharp object.

[17] The deceased was his girlfriend, and the two of them were staying together at his
house. On the day in question, the deceased joined him at a shopping complex just
before midday. The two of them proceeded to their home. On the way, they bought a 2L
bottle of Paarl Perle, a wine so strong that it can even remove rust. They started
drinking the wine on their arrival at home until they fell asleep, when they were about
halfway through the bottle. They woke up again around 6 or 7 in the evening and
continued drinking the remainder of the wine.

[18] The accused suggested that they cook the meat that was remaining in the house.
The deceased started cutting the meat. After she had finis hed cutting the meat, she
took out a fork from the dish where the crockery stays and stabbed the accused with it
on the forehead. This was just out of the blue, as the two had not been fighting or
quarreling about anything at that stage. They were still ha ving a good time. When he
asked the deceased why she was doing that, she said she wanted to remove his
remaining eye. It is common cause that the accused has only one eye presently. The
deceased stabbed the accused for the second time on the ridge of his n ose, saying that
she wanted to remove his eye. He sustained an open wound on the nose ridge. On the
legs and thighs.

[19] It seems that the plank did not have the desired effect as the deceased persisted
in trying to stab the deceased, adamant that she wa nted to remove his eye. The
accused then took a blue knife from the cutlery shelf and stabbed the deceased 3 times,
2 times on the lower left arm and once on the left shoulder, so that she would stop
attacking him. The deceased, however, did not stop, and the two of them struggled in
the house, even pushing each other against the walls of the house. He believes that the
other injuries on the deceased may have been caused by the plank he was using.

[20] Although he could not dispute the other injuries obse rved by Dr De Beer on the

[20] Although he could not dispute the other injuries obse rved by Dr De Beer on the
deceased, given that he was the only person with the deceased on the night in
question, he did not know them, nor could he explain them. The deceased dropped the

fork after he had stabbed her, and the two of them sat down and had a conversation,
which at times would turn into an argument.

[21] He confirmed the arrival of his neighbour, Nobathembu, and her threatening to
blow a whistle for the community if they did not stop making noise. They went to sleep
on their bed after Nobat hembu had left, after taking off their clothes, which was not
uncommon for them, although he did not remove all of his clothes. Around 2 am, the
deceased woke up saying that she was feeling hot. She decided to sleep on the floor by
the door as it was cooler there.

[22] When they woke up, around 8 in the morning, the deceased said that she was
hungry. He gave her bread and a juice to drink. During the night he did not notice that
the deceased had injuries. When he saw her in the morning, he went to a neighb our to
ask for potassium permanganate, a chemical compound normally used for various
ailments.

[23] He went past Nobathembu’s house, whom he found working outside her house
with her husband. When he did not receive the potassium permanganate, he went back
to his house where he found the deceased still lying on the same position, although it
appeared as if she had shifted a bit. The deceased said she wanted chips, he went to
buy them and gave them to her. As she was just starting to eat them, Nobathembu ’s
husband came to ask for his assistance with electrical connections at his house. He
went along with him. On returning lying rigid in the same position he had left her, with
eyes wide open facing upwards. He tried shaking her, but she would not move. He went
to ask for help from Nobathembu, who sent her husband instead, saying that she was
afraid.

[24] Nobathembu’s husband went and peeped into his house, after which he
confirmed that the deceased was indeed dead. Community members came by, and one
of them assaulted him on the head with what appeared to be an iron rod. The accused
sustained an open wound on the head. The community members intervened, and the

police were called. They came and took the accused to hospital, where he received
sutures on his he ad. He refused to be sutured on the nose ridge as he had previously
been sutured there.

[25] A J88 was completed by the doctor who examined the accused, and same was
admitted as exhibit “D” in Court. He could not explain why the injury on the nose ridge
was not reflected on the J88, or why the J88 only stated that he was assaulted by
community members, without stating anything about him being stabbed by the
deceased. On his evidence that information was obtained from the arresting officer.

[26] He also co nfirmed telling Nobathembu that he bathed the deceased using the
basin that contained blood as depicted in the photo album. He could not explain,
however, when asked by the court, why he placed her back on the floor next to the door
after bathing her.

The Issue

[27] The issue in this matter crystallizes on whether the accused was acting in self -
defence when he stabbed and assaulted the deceased.

[28] The following facts are common cause in the matter:

(a) that the accused and the deceased were in a ro mantic relationship and that
they were staying together on the night the deceased was killed;
(b) that a neighbour came to their house to reprimand the accused after hearing
noises coming from his house, of the accused shouting and swearing at the
deceased, and repeated banging sounds as if something or someone was being
assaulted;
(c) the noise abated after her intervention;
(d) the accused stabbed the deceased with a knife and assaulted her with a
plank more than once on the night in question;

(e) the deceased was found dead, lying naked on the floor next to the door on
the following morning;
(f) the deceased’s body had multiple stab wounds, bruises, and lacerations all
over;
(g) the deceased died as a result of the injuries she sustained; and
(h) th e accused was assaulted by community members, as a result of which he
sustained an open wound on his head.

[29] The only witness who indirectly implicates the accused of any wrongdoing in this
matter is her neighbour, who attended to his house on the nigh t in question. This
witness, however, did not see what happened inside the house of the accused. All that
her evidence attests to is what she was told by the accused, which is not in dispute, and
the sounds she heard before and when he was next to the accu sed’s house, which has
also not been placed in issue. Specifically, this witness testified to hearing the deceased
making groaning sounds and uttering, in a soft, weak voice, indicating that she had no
power, that she did not know what the accused was aski ng her about. This evidence
was also not placed in issue.

[30] The only other of the evidence, linking him to the offence, is his own testimony in
court, together with the medical evidence tendered; ie. the post -mortem report and his
own J88.

[31] It is well established in our law that when evaluating evidence, a court must adopt
a holistic approach where the evidence is considered in its totality. Navsa JA, stated this
as follows in S v Trainor:3

‘A conspectus of all the evidence is required. Evidence that is reliable should be
weighed alongside such evidence as may be found to be false. Independently
verifiable evidence, if any, should be weighed to see if it supports any of the
evidence tendered. In considering whether evidence is reliable, the qualit y of that

3 2003 (1) SACR 35 (SCA) para [9].

evidence must of necessity be evaluated as must corroborative evidence, if any.
Evidence, of course, must be evaluated against the onus on any particular issue
or in respect of the case in its entirety.’

[32] Given that there is no direct eviden ce by the state implicating the accused in this
matter, the matter thus turns on inferential reasoning as well as where the probabilities
lie.

[33] The legal principles are trite when it comes to inferential reasoning, as they had
been set out decades ago in the locus classicus case of R v Blom.4 In that case, it was
stated that two cardinal rules of logic cannot be ignored when one is relying on
circumstantial evidence. These are:

‘(1) The inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the proved
facts. If it is not, the inference cannot be drawn.
(2) The proved facts should be such that they exclude every reasonable
inference from them save the one sought to be drawn. If they do not exclude
other reasonable inferences, then there must be a doubt whether the inference
sought to be drawn is correct.’

[34] The proved facts before this court are that the accused stabbed the deceased
multiple times, 13 times to be ex act, and assaulted her with a plank multiple times all
over her body. His version is that he was defending himself against the deceased, who
had stabbed him first. The state in this matter seeks to prove that he was not acting in
self-defence, but rather, he was the aggressor on the night in question. As a secondary
argument, and only in the event that this court accepts he was acting in self -defence,
the state argues that he exceeded the bounds of self-defence.

[35] On the secondary argument raised by the state, in my view, if this were a matter
where negligence was at issue, the maxim res ipse loquitur (the facts speak for

4 1939 AD 188.

themselves) would find application. On the evidence of the accused himself, the injuries
he inflicted on the deceased are far dispropo rtionate to any danger that the deceased
could have posed to him. This is reinforced by the post -mortem report indicating the
extent of the injuries, which the accused could not dispute, as well as the evidence of Dr
De Beer who stated that the injuries on the deceased’s arms are indicative of defensive
injuries, in that ordinarily, one uses their arms to cover their face and chest when facing
an attack.

[35] The real and only question in my view, therefore, is whether, on the totality of the
evidence presented in this matter, it can be said to be reasonably possibly true that the
accused was acting in self-defence when he inflicted the said injuries on the deceased.

[36] His evidence in this regard is that out of the blue, the deceased took out a fork
and stabbed him, not once, but twice on his face, saying that he wanted to remove his
second eye. The strangest part in this version is that at the said time, the deceased was
in possession of a knife she had just used in cutting meat. Yet, she decided to put the
knife aside and took a fork and used it to stab him. This makes this version, as correctly
conceded by his counsel, highly improbable.

[37] Furthermore, he alleges that the deceased stabbed him on the forehead and the
nose ridge, where he sustained o pen wounds. Leaving aside for a moment that these
were the only stab wounds he mentioned in his evidence in chief, only to add under
cross examination, that he was also stabbed on his left chest. Not only was the injury on
the forehead disavowed by Nobathe mbu, the first person who saw him the following
morning, Nobathembu never saw, and was never told of any injury that the accused had
sustained on his nose ridge. It is significant to note that Nobathembu’s evidence was
never disputed by the accused, not ev en when he gave his own evidence in court, in

never disputed by the accused, not ev en when he gave his own evidence in court, in
case one were to argue that his counsel may have omitted to dispute same. If anything,
he confirmed that Nobathembu was telling the truth in court.

[38] Furthermore, Sergeant Luphondwana, the arresting officer, who saw the accused
after he had been assaulted by community members, observed no injuries on the face
of the accused, other than the one on his head, the cause of which was ascribed to the
community members by the accused.

[39] This gets further compou nded by the fact that the accused’s own J88, which he
tendered as evidence in court, only reflects the injury he claimed to have been caused
by the community members. His version that the report was completed at the instance
of and/ or on information recei ved from the arresting officer is not supported by the
objective facts before court. The report itself reflects under the heading ‘brief history’,
that he is the one who reported what had happened to him, and it concludes by saying:
‘no other complaints ra ised’. Meaning that he is the one who informed the attending
medical practitioner about what had happened to him.

[40] Furthermore, a practitioner attending to a patient would record not only what they
are told by a patient, but their own observations as well, irrespective of whether or not
these are reported by the patient. This also explains why the J88 also reflects abrasions
on the right cheek of the accused, even though the accused made no mention of such
injury even when testifying in court. Lending further support in this regard is the
undisputed evidence of Sergeant Luphondwana, that the accused was examined
behind a curtain, and as such, he could not tell whether or not he was sutured on his
head. All that he saw was a bandage around his head. It c an only follow, therefore, that
if he was not in the immediate vicinity when the accused was being treated, he could
not have been in a position to tell the treating practitioner what was wrong with the
accused.

[41] It is clear from the above that the ev idence that the accused was stabbed by the
deceased twice on his face and on his left chest by the deceased is not supported by

deceased twice on his face and on his left chest by the deceased is not supported by
the objective facts and the bulk of the evidence tendered before court. I therefore reject
it as false.

[42] This then leaves the only evidence remaining being the common cause evidence
reflected at paragraph 28 above, the undisputed evidence of Nobathembu that he heard
the accused swearing and shouting at the deceased during the night in question,
saying, inter alia , that ‘he had been telling her for a long time…’; that she heard the
deceased groaning, and that the last of her words she heard being ‘ I do not know what
you are asking me about’, uttered in a soft, evidently powerless voice. Prima facie the
above utterances, specifi cally those by the accused person, he was angered by
something in the conduct of the deceased, which had been persistent for a while.

[43] His evidence, therefore, that there was no quarrel between himself and the
deceased leading to an altercation cannot be true. The manner in which the deceased
was stabbed and assaulted, to the tune of no less than 13 stab wounds, not to mention
the multiple other injuries caused by a beating with the plank, clearly suggests that not
only was the accused the aggressor on the night in question, but he had a clear
intention to unalive the deceased.

[44] In as much as he wants to give this court a picture that they were so drunk with
the deceased that he cannot recall some of the conversations or things that happened,
what is clear is that when Nobathembu arrived at his place, which evidently from the
evidence, was in the midst of him assaulting the deceased, it only took Nobathembu
shouting his name, and threatening to set community members on him, for him to
immediately calm down, leave everything and go to sleep. Which means that he knew
exactly what he was doing, and what would happen to him if the community members
were set on him, hence he complied. It is highly unlikely that anyone who was as drunk
as he claims to hav e been would have reacted in such a manner under those
circumstances.

[45] Given the totality of the evidence as discussed above, I find that the only

[45] Given the totality of the evidence as discussed above, I find that the only
inference that can be drawn is that the accused was not under attack from the
deceased on the night in question. He was in fact the aggressor, and his version that he
was acting in self-defence is so improbable that it is rejected as false.

[46] In the premises, I am satisfied that his guilt has been established beyond
reasonable doubt.

Order
[47] In the result, the following order is made:

The accused is found guilty of murder, as charged.


____________________
V P NONCEMBU
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT


APPEARANCES

FOR THE STATE : Adv Mc Kay
FOR THE ACCUSED : Adv Coertzen

DATE HEARD : 4 to 7 August 2025
DALIVERED : 7 August 2025