S v Moyo (CC15/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 454 (6 October 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
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)

JUDGMENT
Reportable
Case no: CC15/2023
In the matter between:

THE STATE

and

TREVOR MOYO

Neutral citation: State v Trevor Moyo (Case no: CC15/2023) [2025]
ZAWCHC (6 October 2025)
Coram: MAYOSI AJ
Delivered: 6 October 2025

Summary: Accused facing charges of murder, read with the provisions of
section 51(1) of Act 105 of 199 7; robbery with aggravating circumstances
read with ss 51(2), 52(2), 52A a nd 52B of Act 105 of 1997 and further read
with ss 262(1) and 260 of Act 51 of 1977 ; three counts of defeating or
obstructing the course of justice ; theft and , being a Zimbabwean national,
contravening section 49(1) of the Immigration Act.


JUDGMENT ON CONVICTION



Mayosi AJ:

Introduction and background

[1] Trevor Moyo (the accused) faces seven criminal charges in this trial.
[2] He is accused of murdering Mr Pierre Michei Bretonnes (the
deceased), a man that the accused says was like a father to him. The
relevant time is the period from 6 September until 30 September 2022.
[3] The accused was employed by the deceased first as a casual worker in
2019, and later as an assistant in the deceased’s business from about 202 1.
The deceased was in the business of making churros and selling them at
three markets, i.e., the Cape Vineyards and Farm Village markets in
Noordhoek, as well as at the Hout Bay market. According to the accused,
the Cape Vineyards market operated on Wednesdays; the Farm Village

market ran on Thursdays, and the Hout Bay market operated on Fridays,
Saturdays and Sundays.
[4] The deceased was a French nat ional who resided at 1[…] G[...] Close
in
Noordhoek ( the property ; alternatively, the decea sed’s home ); and was
married to Dominique, also a French national. At the relevant time when the
events occurred from which the charges faced by the accused arise, the
deceased and Dominique were separated, and Dominique had returned to
France.
[5] The deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused on the
evening of Wednesday, 7 September 2022.
[6] On Thursday, 8 September 2022, after the deceased did not deliver the
stock required in preparation for that day’s market to the accused as planned,
the accused went to the deceased’s home, jumped over the fence and gained
access to the property . From 8 September onwards until his arrest on 30
September 2022, the accused had free access to the deceased’s home, having
taken the keys and/or remote control to gain such access on 8 September
2022.
[7] The accused continued to operate the Hout Bay market in the absence
of the deceased, using for that purpose the stock that was stored in the
deceased’s garage. He operated the Hout Bay market on 9 to 11 September;
16 to 18 September and 23 to 25 September 2022.
[8] From 8 September until the accused’s a rrest on 30 September 2022,
he
was in possession of the deceased’s Standard Bank card which he removed
from the house on 8 September when he first gained access into the house.

During this period, the accused used the deceased’s bank card to make
various purchases totalling the amount of approximately R140 000.00.
[9] From 8 September until the accused ’s arrest on 30 September 2022,
he
had exclusive possession of the deceased’s bank card.
[10] At no stage during this period (from 8 until 30 September 2022) did
the
accused report the deceased to the South African Police Service (SAPS) as a
missing person, notwithstanding that, according to him he had noticed blood
in the lounge after he first gained access to the h ouse on 8 S eptember 2022,
which blood he proceeded to wipe off and thereafter told no-one about until
1 October 2022, after his arrest.
[11] At no point did the accused tell Dominique, with whom he was in
constant communication during the relevant period a s she was deeply
concerned about the deceased’s disappearance, that he had observed blood
when he entered the house on 8 September 2022.
[12] Dominique, whom the accused regarded as a mother to him, was
concerned not only about the deceased, but also about the well-being of their
pets at the deceased’s home, given his absence. She asked the accused to
look after the pets, and he gave almost daily assurances to her in regard to
their well-being.
[13] Dominique requested the accused to approach the police and report
her
husband as missing, first on 12 September and again on 20 September 2022.
The accused did not do so.
[14] Instead of reporting the deceased as missing on 12 September 2022 as

requested by Dominique, the accused informed her that nothing seemed
untoward at the decea sed’s home; and there after on the same day told her
that he had heard from the deceased via WhatsApp, and that the latter had
told him that h e was in Johannesburg and no-one must be told. The State
disputes the authenticity of this communication.
[15] On 12 September 2022, the accused lied to Dominique when he told
her that he had jumped over the fence to gain access to the deceased’s
property because the gate was closed and all do ors were locked. This was a
lie because at that time , the accused had already attained free access to the
deceased’s ho me, having uplifted the keys for such free access on 8
September 2022.
[16] At no stage did the accused inform Dominique, the only relative of the
deceased with whom he was in contact and who was looking for him, that he
had taken possession of the deceased’s bank card and was spending his
money at will, in the manner that he was doing from 8 September until he
was arrested.
[17] The accused lied to Dominique on 13 September 2022, when he told
her that he was running out of money to feed the pets, and that he would use
his own money if he had to. This was a lie because at that stage, the accused
had exclusive access to the funds in the deceased’s bank account which he
had exclusive control of, and he had started to spend these funds as he
wished. It was therefore a lie that he would have to use his own funds if
necessary, because he was at that stage not using his own funds, but the
deceased’s funds, even for his own personal expen diture such a s buying
himself clothes, food, drinks and going to pubs.
[18] This lie caused Dominique to send $200 (USD) to the accused on 14

September 2022 to shore him up financially, which money he acknowledged
that he received.
[19] The accused lied to Dominique when he told her, on 20 September
2022, that there was no stock for making the churros . The photographs
taken by SAPS of the stock kept in the deceased’s garage showed otherwise.
In any event, i n an interview with SAPS on 1 October 2022 (the warning
statement), the accused told WO Scheepers that there was then enough
stock at the deceased ’s home. Furthermore, even if , for the sake of
argument, there was no longer stock for the churros at the decease d’s home
by 20 September, the accused’s version is that he was using the deceased’s
bank card in the manner that we was doing during the relevant period to buy
such stock. If it was in fact true that the accused was using the deceased’s
bank card to buy s tock for the business, which the State disputes, then for
this reason too the accused’s statement to Dominique was, at best , a
misrepresentation and at worst, an outright lie.
[20] On 26 September 2022, the accused lied to Ms Angelika Haeggman,
Dominque’s friend , when he told the former that he had made a missing
person report regarding the deceased on 22 September 2022 already, at the
Simons Town Police Station. No such report had been made by the accuse d,
on that date, or ever.
[21] The accused further lied to Mrs Haeggman, when he told her that he
had been furnished with a case number by SAPS Simon Town following
upon his (non-existent) missing person report, and further that Mrs
Haeggman could find the case number on an A4 piece of paper that was in
the deceased’s office at his home. No such paper was found by Mrs
Haeggman.
[22] On 27 September 2022, the accused was seen taking photographs of

himself at the deceased’s ho me, outside in the yard by the pool near where
the deceased’s body would later be discovered, and also inside, in one of the
bedrooms.
[23] The deceased was reported to SAPS as a missing person, by Mrs
Haeggman, on 28 September 2022 , whereafter SAPS initiated its
investigation of a missing person.
[24] The accused was interviewed by SAPS on 29 September 2022 as part
of SAPS’s missing person investigation. The version he gave to Detective
Cloete, who took down his statement, was di ametrically opposed to the
version he gave to WO Scheepers in the warning statement on 1 October
2022, after his arrest.
[25] On 30 September 2022, the body of the deceased was discovered by
SAPS members buried in a shallow grave at his home, in an area close to
where the accused was seen posing for photographs of himself some three
days earlier.
[26] The accused was arrested by the investigating officer, Warrant Officer
Steenkamp at the Hout Bay market on 30 September 2022.
[27] WO Steenkamp took the accused to his home and searched the
premises
in the presence of the accused. The deceased’s Standard Bank card was
found on top of the accused’s fridge; a Yoco machine was recovered from
his home and the accused had in his possession a First National Bank (FNB)
bank card.
[28] A warning statement was taken from the accused on 1 October 2022,
during an interview with SAPS which was recorded, and the recording was
transcribed and was admitted as evidence. At this time, SAPS investigation
had changed to one of murder and the accused was a suspect.

[29] In the result, the accused faces the following charges in this trial:
[29.1] Murder, read with the provisions of section 51(1) of A ct 105 of
1997 (count 1 ). I t is alleged that the murder was planned or
premediated and that the death of the deceased was caused by the
accused whilst he was committing or attempting to commit or having
committed robbery with aggravating circumstances as defined in
section 1 of Act 51 of 1977 (the CPA). If found guilty of this charge,
the minimum sentence of life imprisonment is applicable. It was
confirmed on behalf of the accused, who was represented, that he had
been duly informed of this charge and the consequences of a guilty
verdict in relation thereto. The Court furthermore confirmed this to be
the case.
[29.2] Robbery with aggravating circumstances as intended in section
1 of Act 51 of 1977 (read with the provisions of section 51(2), 52(2),
52A and 52B of Act 105 of 1997 ), and further read with the
provisions of sections 262(1) a nd 260 of the Criminal Procedure Act
51 of 1977 (the CPA ) (count 2 ). If found guilty of count 2, a
mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years is applicable. The accused
was informed of this by his legal representative, which the Court
confirmed to be so.
[29.3] Counts 3 to 5, for defeating or obstructing the course of justice,
read with the provisions of section 256 of the CPA, by allegedly doing
the following:
[29.3.1] cleaning up and tampering with the crime scene in
an effort to disguise the murder of the deceased;

[29.3.2] concealing the body of the deceased, and burying
the deceased in a shallow grave on the property;
and
[29.3.3] creating WhatsApp messages purporting to be
from the deceased in order to create the impression
that the deceased was still alive and was in
Johannesburg for business, and thereby delaying
the discovery of his murder.
[29.4] Theft (count 6), for allegedly stealing the amount of R140 000
from the deceased’s bank account during the relevant period.
[29.5] Count 7 is the charge of c ontravening the terms of section
49(1) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002, read with section 1, 9(4), 32
and 34 of that Act. In this regard the State alleged that the accused, a
Zimbabwean national, unlawfully remained in the Republic of South
Africa after entering the country on 10 January 2019 and was only
issued with a 30 day endorsement.
[30] The accused pleaded not guilty to counts 1 to 6.
[31] He pleaded guilty to count 7, in regard to which he admitted that after
being issued with a 30-day endorsement to remain in the Republic when he
entered the Republic in 2019 , he nevertheless remained here beyond that
period until he was arrested on 30 September 2022.

The accused’s section 220 admissions

[32] In the admissions made by the accused in terms of section 220 of the
CPA, he admitted that, inter alia:

[32.1] The identity of the deceased ; that the deceased was
known to him and that the accused was employed by the deceased
to assist with, inter alia, some general work around the house.
[32.2] The body of the deceased was found on 30 September
2022 buried in the yard of the property.
[32.3] He had access to part of the deceased’s house. In this
regard, the evidence showed that he had access to the deceased’s
entire property.
[32.4] During the period of 7 to 30 September 2022, he used the
deceased’s bank card to make various purchases; and tha t the
deceased’s bank card and Y oco machine were found in his
possession. As will be dealt with below in this judgment, the
evidence established that the Y oco machine that was found in the
accused’s possession was not the deceased’s machine, but rather
that it belonged to the accused’s friend Mr Bel K Kayembe; and
that the FNB bank card that was found in the possession of the
accused when he was arrested not only belonged to the same Mr
Kayembe but was linked to the same Yoco machine found in the
accused’s possession at the time of his arrest.
[32.5] On 30 September 2022, the deceased was declared dead ;
a post-mortem examination was performed on his b ody on 4
October 2022 ; that the facts and findings as set out in the post -
mortem report are correct; and the findings related to the cause of
death of the deceased that are noted on that report are correct.
[32.6] From the time of the infliction of the injuries found on
the deceased until the time of the post -mortem examination the
body of the deceased did not sustain any further injuries.

[32.7] On 15 September 2023 a DNA analysis was performed
on a cigarette bu tt that was collected at the deceased’s home (also
referred to as the crime scene) and a reference sample collected
from the accused confirmed that the DNA obtained from the
cigarette butt matched that of a sample that was obtained from the
accused, and that these findings are correct and not disputed by the
accused.
[32.8] The correctness and auth enticity of the deceased’s
Standard Bank statement were not disputed.

The State’s case

[33] The State called eight witnesses. There was no direct eye -witness
evidence in support of the charges against the accused.
[34] The evidence of the State’s witnesses is summarised below. The
seriousness of the charges faced by the accused, combined with the
circumstantial nature of the State’s evidence against him demand a more
detailed summary of the evidence than would ordinarily be the case.

Mrs Angelika Haeggman

[35] She met the accused for the first time on about 20 September 2022
after her frie nd Dominique requested her to go to the deceased’s home to
look after the pets because the deceased was missing.
[36] When she arrived at the deceased’s house, the accused was already
there, and he opened the gate . The dogs appeared to be distressed, and she
did not find the cat on that first day that she went to the house. At some

point, perhaps on that day or a later visit to the house, she took
measurements o f the dogs as Dominique wanted them shipped to her in
France. Mrs Haeggman ultimately took the dogs to live with her on a later
visit to the house.
[37] She later found the cat behind a closed door of one of the bedrooms.
There was no food for it in that closed room. Its fur was matted and the cat
also looked distressed. She fed it, but the cat disappeared after that.
[38] On 26 September, s he asked the ac cused whether he had filed a
missing person report with the police and he told her that he had done so at
Simons Town Police Station on 22 September already, and directed her to
look for an A4 paper in the office of the house on which paper there would
be a case number given to him by the police . She looked and did not find
such a paper.
[39] On 27 September 2022, Mrs Haeggman visited the house
accompanied by her daughter , whose evidence at the trial will be
summarised below. Dominique had asked her to go t o the house to look for
the deceased’s passport in the safe . This , during a time when they were
trying to determine the reason for his disappearance, thinking that he may
have travelled somewhere.
[40] On that day Mrs Haeggman found a blood smudge on a wall along the
passage of the house, but this did not cause her to be suspicious as to her it
resembled the appearance of a mosquito smashed against the wall after it
had sucked blood.
[41] Her daughter, however, made different observations which caused her
to urge her mother to go to the police and report the deceased as missing.
[42] On 28 September 2022, Mrs Haeggman attended at the Simons Town
Police Station to enquire as to whether or not a missing person re port had

been filed by the accused. There was none. She was referred to the police
stations in Ocean View and Fish Hoek and no missing person report was
found to have been made at those station s either. It was only then that Mrs
Haeggman became suspicio us of the accused, and she stopped
communicating with him.
[43] She then proceeded to report the deceased as missing with SAPS on
28 September 2022 , triggering what was at first a n investigation into a
missing person.

Ms Amaryllis Haeggman

[44] She had earlier been requested by her mother Mrs Haeggman to
accompany her to the deceased’s home , and the y went together on 27
September 2022. Her observations inside the house were much more in-
depth and were deeply disturbing to her.
[45] She thought that the garage was in a messy state. In the main bedroom
she observed what she described as drag marks over the carpet which looked
like badly cleaned up marks , as if chemicals had partially burned or ruined
the carpet. She saw m arks on the doorframe and when she stepped
backwards into the corridor and turned to her right, she saw bloody
fingerprints on the wall. She furthermore came across what turned out to be
blood on the right-hand wall just after the office, and when she turned on the
light switch to illuminate the passage that did not have natural light, she
could see that there was what looked like dirt stuck in the grooves of the
linoleum floors. The marks she observed were from the bedroom door all
the way down the corridor to where the open plan area started.

[46] In the open plan area she saw wipe marks all over the floor. It looked
like a lot of liquid had been spilled and an effort had be en made to clean it
up.
[47] When she met her mother back in the open plan kitchen area, she
broke down crying and urged her to file a missing person’s rep ort since no
one had spoken to the deceased , whom she was aware had been missing for
over two weeks . What she saw at the house made her think that maybe the
deceased was not alive or was not in a good state.
[48] The marks on the walls, the bloody fingerprints and the marks on the
doorframe looked to her like there had been a struggle, and it occurred to her
that the house might actually be a crime scene.

Constable Adrian Jonker

[49] He is a constable at the Fish Hoek Crime Prevention Unit, and was on
duty with Detective Captain Marten on 30 September 2022 , when they
discovered the deceased’s body at the property.
[50] While they were patrolling the outskirts of the deceased’s home, the
wind started picking up and a rotten smell came from the direction of the
house. They jumped over the perimeter wall, opened the gate and proceeded
inside the property, and followed the smell which seemed to be coming from
the garden.
[51] In a corner of the garden Detective Marten started scuffing the ground
and that i s when the body of the deceased was discovered , buried in the
backyard of his house.

[52] What drew their attention to that particular area on the lawn was the
fact that the levelling on the grass when compared to the rest of the lawn was
higher, and that did not look normal.

Detective Captain Jeremy Marten

[53] He testified that the accused had given a version to the family that he
had last seen the deceased on the evening of 7 September 2022. The accused
had explained that after the Farm Village market closed, he and the deceased
drove to the deceased’s home in the latter’s vehicle. The accused’s duties
were to then clean the catering equipment that had been used at the market ;
and then from there the accused said he got onto his moto rbike (which he
had earlier left at the deceased’s ho use) and made his way over Chapman’s
Peak to his home in Hout Bay.
[54] The issue that the police had at the outset of the investigation of the
missing person report by Mrs Haeggman was that the accused had told her
that he had reported the deceased missing at a police station. The police had
searched on their police database and there was no reference to any missing
person reported in the police stations in Fish Hoek, Hout Bay, Ocean View
and Simons Town.
[55] According to Detective Captain Marten, if the accused had reported
the deceased as missing, he would have received an SMS message from
SAPS with a reference number. The absence of th is raised the police’s
suspicion.
[56] After a few days into the investigation the police discovered that money
was going off the deceased’s bank account. They discovered that there were
certain transactions at various stores in Hout Bay. The value of the monies

being tapped off the deceased’s bank account was under the amount that
would trigger the requirement of a PIN number for authorisation , i.e., the
transactions were for the amounts of R500 and below . What was further
observed on the deceased’s bank statement was that suddenly, from a certain
date, there were taps from a Yoco machine of many consecutive amounts of
R500.00, which could occur sometimes twenty (20) times or more a day, and
these payments were coming off the deceased’s bank account.
[57] SAPS then visited some of the stores that they could see reflected on
the deceased’s bank statement in order to ascertain if there was CCTV
footage that they could view . At the Engen garage in Hout Bay , the
investigating officer WO Steenkamp was able to retrieve CCTV footage that
showed the accused going into the store on the same day as there was a
transaction in this store, according to the deceased’s bank statement.
[58] Given these activities, the focus of the police w as then drawn to the
accused as a person of interest in the investigation of first, the disappearance
and thereafter the murder of the deceased. In addition, after Ms Haeggman’s
observations at the house wer e revealed to the police, Detective Captain
Marten requested the assistance of the provincial C rime Scene Investigation
team (CSI) to do a forensic examination of the interior of the house.
[59] WO Steenkamp and the forensic team then went to the deceased’s
house on 29 September 20 22, and the CSI team then conducted what the
witness referred to as a blue star test , the process of which entailed a
chemical spray being appli ed to the area s that were suspected of having
blood. This revealed that there had been blood and blood marks in the
passage of the house, and that there were clear signs of a struggle.
[60] The witness testified that at some stage , according to Mrs
Haeggman, the accused had told her that the accused had received a

WhatsApp message from the deceased telling him not to worry; that he was
in Johannesburg and was alright; and that he (the accused) was not to tell
anyone. The police d id not believe in the authenticity of this message,
given what they knew and suspected at the time.
[61] Referring back to 7 September 2022, the date when the accused told
the police that he had left the market with the deceased to the latter ’s home,
the police were able to confirm from a CCTV camera on a private residence
about a few hundred meters from the deceased’s house that the deceased and
the accused did indeed arrive home in the deceased’s vehicle at about 20h29
on that evening (which was a Wednesday) , and that the accused left the
deceased’s residen ce approximately an hour later, at 21h21 on his
motorbike, which was later seen going over Chapman’s Peak in the direction
of Hout Bay. This led Detective Captain Marten to believe t hat if the
accused had murdered the deceased (who was then a missing person when
these investigations were unfolding ), then his body would have to be at the
house or either just behind the house at the bottom of the mountain, because
the house was located at the foot of the mountain. An additional f actor in
regard to this suspicion was the fact that the accused left the deceased’s
house on his motorbike, and there would have been nowhere to transport the
body on a motorbike.
[62] On 30 September 2022, Detective Captain Marten returned to the
house together with Const. Jonker. They searched the base of the mountain
first, and then after Const . Jonker indicated to him a strong smell they
proceeded onto the property.
[63] As they passed the pool area on the property, the sme ll got stronger
and on the flowerbed between the neighbour’s wall and the deceased’s
property the witness observed that the soil was upset. The witness then got

down on his knees at the area of the distu rbed soil. He started digging with
his hands and about a foot under the soil , he found a body wrapped up in
what looked like a white bedsheet.
[64] As soon as he was satisfied that it was in fact a human body he
contacted the provincial CSI team to return to the house. He then handed the
scene over to the investigating officer, WO Steenkamp.
[65] While they were waiting for the forensic team to arrive at the crime
scene, Detective Captain Marten noticed a cigarette bu tt in an area close to
where the decea sed’s body was found , about 10 meters from the body . He
notified the CSI team who collected it and sealed it in a bag for examination.
It is this cigarette bu tt w hich in his section 220 admissions the plaintiff
admitted belonged to him, after the DNA from the cigarette butt matched the
DNA obtained from him.
[66] Furthermore, on 27 September 2022, some 20 days after the
deceased’s disappearance , the accused photographed himself in the
deceased’s house, sitting on his furniture and standing right there where the
cigarette butt was found, close to the deceased’s shallow grave.

Evidence of the warning statement – Warrant Officer Joe Scheepers

[67] This witness was called to place evidence of the warning statement
before the Court. The warning statement was taken on 1 October 2022 when
the accused was now a suspect in a murder investigation , by means of a
recording of the accused’s interview with WO Scheepers, which was
thereafter transcribed, and the transcript was read into the record by WO
Scheepers.

[68] Ms Andrews for the accused indicated that she had consulted with the
accused and he did not dispute the contents of warning statement. She
confirmed that the warning statement also had an audio recording and that
the transcribed warning statement corresponds with the audio recording of
the interview with the accused. This is important, because later on in his
evidence under cross examination, the accused sought to distance himself
from the contents of this very warning statement whose contents he had not
disputed at this stage in the trial.
[69] The accused said the following, in summary and in relevant part , to
WO Scheepers, in the presence of WO Steen kamp, as read into the record
and reflecting the undisputed contents of the warning statement.
[70] On the morning of 7 September 20 22, the accused arrived at the
deceased’s house to assist with preparations to go to the Farm Village in
Noordhoek. The deceased was with his friend Bernard. At about 16h00 the
accused and the deceased proceeded to the Farm Village ma rket. After the
market had ended th ey returned to the deceased’s house in the latter’s
vehicle. Bernard was still there. They dropped off the equipment that they
had used at the market , after which the accused then took his motorbike and
left the deceased with Bernard. The accused proceeded to his home in the
Hout Bay area.
[71] The next day on 8 September 2022, he then went to the d eceased’s
house in the morning and upon finding the gate locked, he jumped over the
perimeter wall to ac cess the house. He opened a main door that was not
locked and went inside.
[72] He found blood on the floor in the lounge . He wiped it using a
dishtowel which he afterwards washed in the sink . He told WO Scheepers
that he knew that the house was a crime scene already. The accused in his

evidence denied that he said this to WO Scheepers . Furthermore, he denied
in his evidence under cross examination that he told WO Sch eepers that the
amount of blood he saw was the size of a saucer. Both denials were
unconvincing as the undisputed recording of the warning statement,
supported by the undisputed transcript thereof, speaks for itself.
[73] The accused then found a remote control which he took and used to
open the gate . Before he went out, he took the deceased’s bank card. He
found the bank card in the deceased’s drawer, in one of the cupboards in the
lounge. He said that he had known the deceased for two years and knew
where his bank stuff was. He took the deceased’s bank card and then left the
house.
[74] As soon as he got to his place in Hout Bay after leaving the deceased’s
house on 8 September , he received a WhatsApp message on his phone. The
accused speculated that the message was from the friend he h ad left the
accused with – Bernard. The message said: “For whatever you have seen
and if you say that out I am coming after you and your wife.” He believed
that the message was referring to what he said he had seen at the deceased’s
house – the blood. For this reason, the accused told WO Scheepers, he could
not go to the police for fear that ‘[he] was going to be hunted, or [his] wife
was going to be hunted.’
[75] The accused, however, kept the deceased’s bank card, which he told
WO Scheepers he used very often.
[76] When WO Scheepers asked the accused why Bernard would have the
accused’s phone number when the accused had only met him twice
(including on 7 September ), the accused could not answer this question,
even when he admitted to WO Scheepers that he had not given his cell
number to Bernard.

[77] WO Scheepers then asked the accused : “But you realise that the
utilisation of the bank card is actually a criminal offence.” To which the
accused replied: “I do”. The accused stated that he used the deceased’s bank
card every day, to buy his pants, food and drink s; that he kept the bank card
with him until his arrest on 30 September 2022 , and that the bank card was
recovered from the accused’s home.
[78] From 8 September, the accused returned to the house daily to feed the
pets at the request of Dominique and he did so except on Fridays, Saturdays
and Sundays (the days of the Hout Bay market). He was using the
motorbike that the deceased had bought for him to get around. When he was
there to feed the pets, he told WO Scheepers that he checked the house and
the premises, and he did not see anything untoward . He went to the house
for about a week and a half after 7 September, to feed the pets.
[79] After 10 days he had to share the remote with Mrs Haeggman and she
took over the responsibility for the pets. The accused only returned to the
house when he wanted to take stock for the Hout Bay market, which he was
continuing to run in the absence of the deceased.
[80] He returned to the house on the 28 th September to fetch some stock.
He told WO Scheepers that there was enough stock in the garage of the
deceased’s house. When he was at the house on the 28 th he noticed some
items missing, such as a WIFI router, a MacBook and an inverter. He had by
then received some p hotographs of certain areas of t he house from
Dominique depicting blood on the walls and on the bedroom carpet - she had
sent them to him on the 26 th. Dominique had herself received these photos
from Mrs Haeggman. The accused told WO Scheepers that he then looked
around the house on that d ay and noticed what looked like blood to him in
the passage next to the office door , and on the carpet in the bedroo m. He

nevertheless took the stock he needed and left for the Hout Bay market. The
Court notes that the 28th of September 2022 was a Wednesday, and therefore
there was no market that the accused was busy with on that day.
[81] WO Scheepers testified that the only explanation for why the accused
did not report the deceased as missing is that he wanted to buy himself more
time to syphon money out of the deceased’s account. He was tapping funds
off the account, to the maximum amount of R500 (or less) that did not
require a PIN, up to 20 times a day on some days from about 11 September
2022 until 28 September 2022.
[82] In the view of this Court, this motive for the failure to report the
deceased as missing is not only plausible, but it is the most plausible
explanation and motive in the circumstances of this case , in particular when
regard is had to the accused’s attempts at explaining exactly why he did not
report the deceased, whom he regarded as a father, as a missing person for a
whole 23 days . This will be dealt with more fully below in the analysis of
the accused’s evidence.
[83] WO Scheepers testified that at no point during his interview with the
accused during the taking of the warning statement did the accused tell him
that he used the deceased’s bank card in ord er to buy stock for the business.
On the contrary, the accused told WO Scheepers that there was enough stock
at the deceased’s garage, and that the card transactions were of him buying
himself clothes, drinks, food and generally entertaining himself.

Detective Christiaan Cloete

[84] On 28 September 2022, Detective Cloete and WO Steenkamp
attended at the deceased’s house , where they met with Mrs Haeggman and
the accused. They were then shown around the deceased’s house.
[85] Detective Cloete took a statement from the accused on 29 September
2022, at a time when the police were investigating the case of a missing
person, following the missing person report made by Mrs Haeggman the
previous day – before the discovery of the deceased’s body and the
accused’s arrest.
[86] What the accused told Detective Cloete was very different in material
respects from what he told WO Scheepers merely two days later when he
was taking the warning statement.
[87] The accused told Detective Cloete that the deceased dropped him off
at the accused’s home driving his white Fiat on 8 September 2022, which he
said was a Wednesday evening. The 8th of September 2022 was in fact a
Thursday. The 7 th of September, which is the day when CCTV footage
confirms the deceased being seen arriving at his home driving his white Fiat
with the accused , and the accused leaving an hour later on his motorbike ,
was the Wednesday. The 7th September is also the date on which the accused
told WO Scheepers he returned with the deceased to the latter’s house.
[88] The accused continued to tell Detective Cloete that the deceased was
then supposed to drop stock at the accused’s place on Thursday 9 September
for the market o n Friday, Saturday and Sunday in Hout Bay. The 9 th
September was in fact a Friday not a Thursday , and the Hout Bay market
was to take place on Friday the 9th, Saturday the 10th and on Sunday the 11th
of September according to the accused’s own evidence . So if there was a
market to attend to on Thursday 8 September when the accused says he went
to the deceased’s home to pick up sto ck, the Hout Bay market was not that

market, on his own version . Given the accused’s evidence that after the
deceased disappeared he only operated the Hout Bay market which occurred
only from Fridays to Sundays, it is safe to conclude on the evidence that the
accused did not attend to or operate any market on Thursday 8 September
2022 after he went to the deceased’s house, saw blood which he wiped off,
and picked up his Sta ndard Bank card. That he had taken possession of the
deceased’s bank card on Thursday 8 September is consistent with the
activities seen on the deceased’s bank statement on 8 September already,
when the first repeated and consecutive taps to the maximum of R500 to the
same merchant (i.e., Don C) can be seen. Two other transactions to this same
merchant were for under the amount of R500. All these seven transactions
to Don C on 8 September 2022 could be authorised for payment without
requiring a PIN number.
[89] So then, to correct the dates and stay within the accused ’s version, the
deceased dropped the accused off at his place on Wednesday 7 September
(the CCTV footage obtained confirms this date); this was the last date on
which the deceased was seen alive in the comp any of the accused; the
deceased was supposed to drop off stock at the accused’s place on Thursday
8 September for the Hout Bay market to be held from Friday 9 September
until Sunday 11 September. But let’s leave aside for the moment the
confusion about the dates and days and continue with the accused’s version
to Detective Cloete when the investigation was about a deceased who was
then thought to be missing, rather than a dead person.
[90] According to the accused, the deceased did not show up on the
Thursday and there was no message from him. The accused then drove with
his motorbike on Friday the 9th to the deceased’s place. The gate was locked
and he could not get insider the yard.

[91] This is the first material discrepancy from what he told WO Scheepers
in the warning statement and in the accused’s own evidence during the trial.
He told WO Scheepers on 1 October, that he made this trip to the deceased’s
house on Thursday 8 September, and that when he found the gate locked, he
jumped over the perimeter wall and gained access to the house.
[92] Second, the accused did not tell Detective Cloete that after he entered
the house, he found blood on the lounge floor which he wiped off , and that
he proceeded to take possession of the deceased’s bank card.
[93] Instead, what he told Detective Cloete is that after finding the gate
locked on 9 September and he could not get insider the yard , he returned to
the deceased’s house on 12 September (which would have been the Monday)
after he had received a message saying the following: “Hello Trevor, it is
Pierre. How was the market? I want you to go home and check on the gate.
There is a big stone, check down, there are keys. Feed the dogs and cat.
Change the water in the bowls of dogs.”
[94] The accused asked the alleged deceased if he was OK and he texted
back: “I am okay. I am in Johannesburg for my appointment. Do not tell
anyone that I am in Johannesburg.”
[95] None of this was told to WO Scheepers during the warning statement.
[96] After receiving the above message the accused the n returned to the
deceased’s house on Monday, 12 September and found the remote for the
house under the rock , purportedly as directed by the deceased in his earlier
message. He opened the garage with the remote, and got some stock from
the garage for the Hout Bay market . He to ok the stock to Hout Bay on his
bike. It must be noted that the Hout Bay market was to be held next on the
next Friday the 16th to Sunday the 18th September, on the accused’s own
version.

[97] The accused went back to the deceased’s house every day to feed the
dogs and the cat , but he only noticed the blood in the house on Tuesday, 27
September after Dominique had sent him pictures of blood in the carpet on
the main bedroom and on the wall s in the house . She sent these pictures to
him on 26 September, having herself received those pictures from Mrs
Haeggman. It was only then that the accused noticed the blood in the
remainder of the house. He never heard from the deceased again and
Dominique told him he could keep the money from the Hout Bay market.
[98] This is the fourth discrepancy from his warning statement, where he
told WO Scheepers that he noticed the rest of the blood in the house to
which he had been alerted by Doninique on Wednesday, 28 September,
when he went to the house to fetch more stock for the Hout Bay market.
[99] The accused did not menti on Bernard to Detective Cloete ; nor did he
mention having received a threatening message after he went to the house on
8 September (or for that matter on 9 September , as per his version to
Detective Cloete) which caused him fear from reporting the circumstances to
the police.
[100] To Detective Cloete, t here was rather mention of another gentleman
named Yannick who had had a fight with the deceased at the Hout Bay
market with the result that the deceased was no longer allowed inside the
Hout Bay market . Yannick was not mentioned at all to WO Scheepers
during the warning statement.
[101] Detective Cloete testified that he asked the accused during the
interview how does he support the Hout Bay market that he was running and
the accused responded that there was enough stock at the deceased’s house ,
and furthermore that Dominique had told him that he could keep the cash
made from the market to sustain himself. The accused never mentioned to

Detective Cloete that he was still actively buying stock for the market , using
the deceased’s bank card.

Warrant Officer Dawid Malan Steenkamp

[102] He was the investigating officer on the case before he was transferred
outside of Cape Town, to Caledon. When the investigation started it was a
missing person investigation. He was called out to the deceased’s home by
Mrs Haeggman, who had reported the deceased missing on 28 September
2022.
[103] As they did a walk through th e house, WO Steenkamp decided to
contact CSI regarding the marks that appeared in the house. CSI only came
out the following day, on 29 September 2022.
[104] In the course of his investigation, WO Steenkamp followed up on the
cameras as to when last the deceased was seen coming to his house. The
house was in a cul de sac. One of the neighbours had a functioning camera
that showed the deceased arriving at his house on the evening of 7
September in his white Fiat, and the accused leaving on his bike
approximately an hour later.
[105] What he observed during the tour of the house were blood marks from
inside the living room, the kitchen, right throughout the house , the whole
main hallway, through to the main bedroom as well. He also observed that
the third bedroom was a mess. Besides the marks observed, the whole house
actually looked relatively orderly except for that third bedroom.
[106] He called the CSI team, who went to the house on 29 September 2022
and took over the scene. After they had conducted their tests and the amount
of blood throughout the house was reve aled, one of the crime scene

investigators told WO Steenkamp that with this amount of bloo d in th is
house, the person involved was definitely not alive . This turned out to be
true.
[107] When WO Steenkamp returned to the house the next day on 30
September 2022, the wallet that he had earlier observed in the main bedroom
on 28 September had been moved to the dining room table. He was called by
Detective Captain Marten to the house , when he was confronted with the
discovery of the deceased ’s body in the shallow grave on his own property.
By then Detective Captain Marten had already called CSI to come out to the
scene again.
[108] Thereafter WO Steenkamp then sought section 205 authorisations into
the deceased’s bank account. Dominique had also complained to him that
there were transactions going off the deceased’s account that were not
authorised. After he obtained the deceased’s bank statement, he saw that
money had be en going off his account at an alarming rate , daily, including
the R500 transactions that were tapped off repeatedly from 8 September
2022.
[109] What caught his interest was a transaction that was at an Engen garage
that went off on a certain day and at a certain time. He went to said Engen
garage in Hout Bay and enquired from the manager , who gave him full
permission to view the video footage of that particular day . What WO
Steenkamp observed from the footage was the accused purchasing four red
bulls and a pack of ice, using the deceased’s bank card. This transaction
occurred at 03h32, in the early hours of the morning of 26 September 2022.
[110] He was also told by Mrs Haeggman who reported th e deceased
missing that the ac cused had told her that he himself had reported the
deceased as a missing person. When WO Steenkam p enquired at Fish Hoek,

Ocean View and Simons Town Police Stations he found no missing person
report.
[111] The witness then went on to testify about the photographs found on
the accused’s phone, the timestamp of which showed that on 27 September ,
3 days before the deceased’s body was discovered, the accused was taking
photographs of himself on the deceased’s pr operty, not far from where the
shallow grave was found. Another picture taken on the same day was taken
by the dining room table, and another was a picture in which the accused
appeared to be leaning against a headboard in a bedroom. WO Steenkamp
testified that that picture appeared to have been taken in the messy third
bedroom he had earlier testified about.
[112] When CSI arrived on 30 September and exhumed the body of the
deceased, it was wrapped in a white sheet. He believed that the white sheet
in which the deceased’s body was discovered wrapped in in the shallow
grave came from this third bedroom, which was in an upside down state and
did not have a duvet.
[113] The witness testified about the arrest of the accused on 30 September
2022. After the discovery of the deceased’s body on that day, he and a
colleague went to the Hout Bay market and effected the arrest of the
accused. He told him his rights, as well as the reasons for his arrest, placed
him in cuffs and escorted him to a marked police vehicle. They then decided
to go to the accused’s house, first of all to confirm where he stayed but also
to see if there was any property at the accused’s house that was linked to this
case.
[114] When SAPS got to the accused ’s house, WO Steenkamp asked the
accused where the deceased’s bank card was, because he knew by then from
the section 205’s that he had obtained and the video footage he had seen ,

that the accused had been using the deceased’s bank card. The accused told
him that it was on top of the fridge, and that is where WO Steenkamp found
it. Also, inside the house WO Steenkamp found a Y oco machine that was
pointed out to him by the accused. He collected this, the bank card and some
clothes and then booked these under the SAP13 register at Fish Hoek Police
Station.
[115] At that stage however, when the accused was arrested and this Yoco
machine was found at his house, as well as when WO Steenkamp was
testifying before this Court, the link between the Y oco machine and any
transactions from the deceased’s bank account was not know n. In other
words, it was not known where the funds went to that were repeatedly
tapped using the deceased’s bank account, in particular those that appeared
to be going off to an entity by the name of LOVEx. Except for those
transactions that were paid to stores such as the Engen garage, RT s Pub the
payments to whom were clearer, there were hundreds of taps in the amount
of R500 to LOVEx using a Yoco machine and it was not known who this
Yoco machine belonged to , and how it was linked to the accused and his
activities with the deceased’s bank card during the period from 8 until 30
September.
[116] Another item that the accused had in his possession when he was
arrested was the FNB card, which was also booked into the SAP13 register.
[117] The witness testified that before his last sighting with the accused on 7
September, the deceased’s bank statement revealed that he had used his own
card to purchase at Food Lovers Market on 6 September. He testified that all
the circumstantial evidence pointed to the accused having had a motive fo r
killing the deceased - he had access to the deceased’s property; exclusive
access to the deceased’s bank account and card; and he did not report the

deceased as missing during the entire period whilst he was spending the
accused’s money at will.



Doctor Yolande Van der Heyde

[118] The post-mortem on the deceased was conducted by Dr Anez Awath-
Behari. Dr Van der Heyde, a forensic pathologist whose experience and
expertise were not placed in dispute, had familiarised herself with and
reviewed the post-mortem report of Dr Behari , and came to Court to place
the findings of that report into evidence . The post-mortem was performed
on 4 October 2022.
[119] According to the post-mortem report:
[119.1] The deceased’s body appeared to be in various stages of
decomposition when it was found in the shallow grave on his
property.
[119.2] There was partial skeletonization of the face with loss of
eyes, cartilage of the nose and the lips and mouth which was packed
with dense brown mud.
[119.3] The rest of the deceased’s body showed features of
saponification with complete sloughing of the palms and feet, some of
which were removed for fingerprints.
[119.4] Saponification was also noted on the anterior aspect of
both thighs.
[119.5] The deceased’s body presented covered in a white shroud
(which had the appe arance of a white sheet on the common cause

photographs taken at the crime scene ), covering the neck area and
applied over the arms and the feet anteriorly. This was bound by a red
and white twill like rope with two fixed knots applied across both
arms, over the front of the neck extending over the back of the neck ;
the legs had be en bound in cellophane tape which had unravelled on
the anterior aspects of the ankles. The deceased appeared to have been
wrapped in the white sheet whilst he was fully dressed.
[119.6] Dr Behari had concluded in her report tha t the cause of
death was unnat ural, and that the death was caused by penetrating
incised wounds of the chest and neck, and possible compression of the
neck by a ligature was to be considered. In short , the deceased was
stabbed multiple times and was possibly strangled as well.
[119.7] In her evidence, Dr Van der Heyde concluded that Dr
Behari’s examination and findings supported a conclusion that the
deceased had been dead for at least two to three weeks before his
body was discovered in the shallow grave.
[119.8] Based on her professional opinion and the state of decay
of the deceased’s body , it was in line with the deceased having died
on or about 7 September 2022.

Detective Captain Jeremy Marten

[120] He was recalled to give evidence on the downloads obtained from the
accused’s cell phone. These pertained to WhatsApp messages obtained
therefrom; audio recordings ; and screenshots. Detective Capt. Marten was
furthermore recalled to testify regarding information of the bank transactions
of the deceased.

[121] The accused’s phone was forensically downloaded by what he
referred to as the war room , the unit in SAPS concerned will cell phone
downloads. They put the downloads into three categories, namely images
(photographs), screenshots and WhatsApp’s, which were found on the
accused’s cell phone.
[122] He started with the deceased’s bank account transactions. There were
numerous transactions that appeared to have occurred from the deceased’s
bank acc ount from 8 September when he was deemed missing . But more
concerning were the numerous Y oco machine transactions that came off his
bank account. He explained that a Y oco machine is used by mer chants to
facilitate payment s into their accounts resulting from purchase s made by
consumers who buy from them . Some of the first entries reflected on 8
September already reflect ed the merchant Don C. The deceased’s bank
statement showed that seven transactions to this mer chant were tapped off
the deceased’s bank account on 8 Se ptember 2022, five of them for the
maximum amount of R500 , which was the amount capable of being paid
before a PIN was required. The transactions that occurred on 8 September
only reflected on the deceased’s bank account two days later on 10
September. An analysis of the deceased’s bank statement showed that this
was typical of most if not all other Y oco transactions, i.e., t ransactions
tended to reflect on the deceased’s bank account one or two days after the y
had actually been tapped with his bank card.
[123] In the early days of the deceased’s disappearance there were also
various transactions tapped to an entity named Bay H (which, because of the
letter H the Detective Captain assumed was located in the Hout Bay area); to
RT’s Pub and the Workshop.

[124] Thereafter, from about 10 September until 28 September, there were
repeated purchases paid for by means of a Yoco machine from the
deceased’s Standard bank card to an entity reflected on his statement as
LOVEx, to the maximum amount of R500 on each tap . On 11 September,
purchases to LOVEx for R500 using the Yoco machine were made 18 times;
on 12 September they were made 20 times; on 13 September they were
made 20 times; on 14 September they were made 16 times . And the pattern
continued of payments to this entity, using a Yoco machine , until 28
September 2022.
[125] As for the phot os downloaded from the accused’s phone, evidence
was led of a photograph taken on 18 September at about 20h31 at RT’s Pub
and Grill which, when regard is had to the deceased’s bank statement,
correlated with two transactions that were paid to RT’s Pub , in the amount
of R400 and R300 on that same day.
[126] Furthermore, there were two photographs of the accused taken at the
deceased’s house on 27 September 2022 , inside and outside the deceased’s
house by the pool, near where the deceased was found in a shallow grave.
[127] Then there were a number of screenshots recovered from the
accused’s phone. The witness testified that s creenshots are created when the
user of a cell phone take photos of what appears on the screen of the phone.
Whilst analysing the accused’s phone Detective Capt. Marten came across
six screenshots showing t ransactions from the deceased’s bank account ,
including his bank balance . One of these screenshots show ed that on 13
September 2022, some five days after the dec eased disappeared, the balance
in his account was R403 960.38.
[128] There was a sc reenshot dated 12 September 2022 where somebody
claiming to be the deceased said the following: “Hello Trevor, it’ s Pierre,

how was the market. I want you to go home and check on the gate , there is a
big stone, check down there, there are keys. Feed the dogs and cats, change
the water in the bowls of the dog.” The accused apparently responded: ”Hi,
sir, we are worrie d, are you OK .” The alleged deceased wrote: “I’m OK,
I’m in Johannesburg for my appointments, do not tell anybody that I’m in
Johannesburg.” The acc used responded: “Oh okay, so when will you be
back?” And the conversation ended there , according to the witness . This is
the conversation that the accused told Detective Cloete about but made no
mention of to WO Scheepers during the warning statement.
[129] There was a section 205 subpoena that was served on the cell phone
company relating to the cell number of the alleged deceased that sent these
messages to the accused . According to the witness, there was almost no
evidence linked to the number . I t was as though the number had been
created for 3 to 4 days and then it went dead quiet. Detective Capt. Marten
suspected that the accused had bought a sim car d solely for the purposes of
fabricating these messages to himself, to make it appear as though the
deceased was still alive and was communicating with him.
[130] Moving on to the WhatsApp messages found on the accused ’s phone.
Of particular interest in th e context of a critical missing piece of the puzzle
were communications that the accused had with a person named Bel. This
turned out to be the Bel Kayembe referred to previously, and who was
ultimately linked to t he Yoco machine recovered from the accused’s home
during his arrest.
[131] Their communications started on 6 September 2022. This day was a
Tuesday. On that date, the accused asked Bel:
[131.1] “Did you manage to get the thing?”

[131.2] Bel responded: “I’m going today. By when do you need
it?”
[131.3] The accused responded, “The weekend.” That would be
the weekend that began on Friday 9 September until Sunday 11
September.

[132] This timeline is important, because from the evidence presented to the
Court, the deceased was still alive then on 6 September 2022, when the
accused appeared to be hatching a plan to acquire a Yoco machine which
would facilitate him syphoning money out the deceased ’s bank account,
which he planned to start doing by the coming weekend. As stated earlier,
the deceased’s bank statement showed that the deceased was alive and made
a purchase at Food Lovers Market on 6 Septembe r whilst the accused, who
described the deceased as being like a father to him , was already ,
unbeknownst to the deceased, putting his plans in motion. The deceased was
last seen alive with the accused on the following day.
[133] On the 7 September, Bel and the accused were still searching for ‘the
thing’, because the accused ask ed Bel: “Are you wining? ” and Bel
responded: “I’m going there again tomorrow to get it they didn’t know
where they put … But my baby bro looking.…I’ll let you know tomorrow.”
On 9 September, Bel wrote to the accused: “You’ll be the first to know once
I got good news but I’m not leaving here till I find it.” Later on the 9 th
September Bel sent the accused two voice notes , in the one saying: “How
could I let you down ” and the second one he said: “I found it , I’ll sort you
out.” Whatever the item was that the accused had requ ested from Bel on 6
September, which Bel had been searching for since had now clearly been
found.

[134] According to Detective Capt. Marten, the ‘thing’ that they were
discussing and which Bel ultimately found was the Yoco machine.
Detective Capt. Marten testified that he had called Bel during the course of
the investigation and the latter confirmed to him telephonically that he and
the accused were discussing a Yoco machine that Bel ’s brother had. The
witness testified that Bel refused to go to the police station when asked by
the police to present himself, as he was afraid. SAPS searched for Bel as he
was suspected to be an accomplice, but he was never found.
[135] The day on which Bel f ound the Yoco machine – 9 September – is
consistent with the day on which a payment using a Yoco machine to
LOVEx first appeared on the deceased’s bank statement, i.e., that same date.
It was a payment for R10 and on 10 September two payments for R300 and
then R60 were made using a Yoco machine in favour of LOVEx. But the
deluge of Yoco machine payments to LOVEx really began from 11
September until 2 8 September, during which period amounts of R500 were
tapped on the LOVEx Y oco machine a total of 255 times, removing
R127 500 from the deceased’s bank account to the LOVEx entity.
[136] The link between Bel, LOVEx , the Yoco machine and the accused
starts to appear in their WhatsApp messages on 13 September 2022 , when
Bel wrote the following to the accused: “Test this out quick Hi Tray. Make a
R100.00 payment to LOVExLIGHT using this link : h[…]”. Later on the
same day , Bel again wrote to the accused: “Hi Tray. Make a R1 000.00
payment to LOVExLIGHT using this link: h[...].
[137] WhatsApp messages were also retrieved from the accuse d’s phone of
conversations that he had with Dominique, and with Mrs Haeggman. Their
contents have been alluded to in evidence already set out above. In summary
they confirm that the accused was asked on at least two occasions by

Dominique to report the deceased missing; their discussions regarding the
feeding of the pets . They reflect Dominique ’s genuine concern about the
deceased and the accused appearing to share the same concern; and all the
information he omitted to tell her , such as about the blood he found and
wiped off on the 8 September. The message s confirm the accused telling
Dominique h e had to access the deceased’s house by jumping over the
perimeter fence on 12 September; no mention of the fact that he had
possession of her husband ’s bank account even as he was accepting extra
money from her; and that there was no stock at the deceased’s house.
[138] The WhatsApp messages further confirm that he told Mrs Haeggman
that he had reported the deceased missing on 22 September at Simons Town
police station when he had in fact never done so. This lie was further
corroborated by information obtained from the accused’s cell phone records,
which showed that he never left the Hout Bay area on that day.
[139] After the evidence of this witness, the State closed its case.

State’s application to re-open its case

[140] The State thereafter made application for leave to re -open its case in
order to lead further evidence that only became available to it after the
closure its case . The evidence pertained to information obtained from the
Yoco company which was relevant and material to the issues that arose in
the trial. The evidence also pertained to the bank account that received the
funds that were tapped off the deceased’s bank c ard using said Yoco
machine, as that bank account was directly linked to the Y oco machine in
question. Furthermore, the FNB card associated with this bank account was
found in the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest.

[141] The application, which was made before the accused started leading
his evidence in defence, was opposed by the accused.
[142] The State explained that during the course of the investigation , the
investigating officer made several attempts to make contact with
representatives of Y oco in order to obtain the required information. These
attempts were unsuccessful at the time due to the impact of the COVID -19
pandemic.
[143] During the relevant period, Yoco’s offices in South Africa closed as a
result of pandemic -related restrictions. Their employees were working
remotely and could not be reached through the usual channels. The
company’s operations were significantly disrupted, and communication was
delayed.
[144] Further, when operations eventually resumed, it transpired that Y oco
had relocated to a different address. The investigating officer was therefore
required to take additional investigative steps to locate the new premises and
establish contact with the relevant individuals. These efforts were ultimately
successful during the June 2025 court recess period, at which stage the
State’s case had already been closed.
[145] The accused’s version that was put to the State witnesses was that he
was in possession of the bank card of the deceased for essential stock for the
market. He maintained that he had no knowledge of the money that was
stolen from the account of the deceased by way of tapping and certainly no
knowledge of where the funds were directed to after the tapping of the card.
The evidence from Yoco is material as it establishes a direct operational link
between the Yoco machine used to process the transactions ; the FNB
account into which funds were being deposite d; and the accused , who was
found in possession of the FNB account tied to that very account.

[146] The State submitted that the new evidence fills a crucial evidentiary
gap as it connects the flow of the stolen funds from the deceased’s account
to the Yoc o machine and ultimately to the FNB account under Bel’s name
and account ; whose card the accused had in his possession when he was
arrested.
[147] Furthermore, it was submitted that t he evidence sought to be
introduced largely consists of digital financial records obtained from Yoco,
including the transaction history and associated bank account deta ils linked
to a specific card machine. Such evidence is not subject to manipulation or
tailoring by the prosecution, as it is generated and maintained by a third
party. Accordingly, this is not newly created evidence, nor does it rely on
the subjective interpretation or recollection of a witness.
[148] I granted the application for the State to re-open its case , for the
reasons that the evidence sought to be placed before this Court by the State
is relevant, material and it is in the interests of justice that it be introduced.
[149] I am satisfied that there was no deliberate delay or negligenc e in
failing to secure the evidenc e earlier, and that the application to re -open the
State’s case is made in good faith. Furthermore, permitting the re -opening
of the State’s case will not prejudice the accused , and will serve the broader
interests of justice and the fair adjudication of this case.

The further evidence of the State – Warrant Officer Dawid Malan
Steenkamp

[150] To place his further evidence in context he reiterated that , as the
investigating officer in the case, he effected the arrest of the accused at the

Hout Bay market on 30 September, whereafter he took the accused to the
accused’s house.
[151] At the house, the deceased’s Standard Bank card was found on top of
the accused’s fridge, after the accused, who was present during the search of
his home, informed the warrant officer that this is where it would be found.
[152] Next to the fridge the warrant officer found a blue Yoco machine,
these items and other minor items of clothing were taken and booked into
the SAP13 register at Fish Hoek Police Station.
[153] The Yoco machine had serial number 2[...].
[154] As stated earlier, a nother item found on the accused’s person during
his arrest , and which was also booked into the SA P13, was a FNB card
which ended with the numbers 4398. An affidavit made in terms of section
236 of the CPA by an employee of FNB confirmed that th is FNB car d
ending with number s 4398 was issued by FNB to Mr B el K Kayembe who
held a bank account with number 6[...] with FNB.
[155] Furthermore, copies of Mr Kayembe’s bank account for the period 26
August 2022 until 6 October 2022 were furnished by FNB by means of a
section 236 affidavit furnished to the Court.
[156] An affidavit made in terms of section 236 of the CPA by an employee
of Yoco Technologies (Pty) L td confirmed that the following details were
linked to the Yoco machine with serial number 2[...]:
[156.1] Trading name: LOVExLIGHT.
[156.2] Owner name Bel Kayembe.
[156.3] Banking details linked to the Yoco machine: FNB
savings account number 6[...] held by Bel Kayembe.
[156.4] The first transaction was made on 9 September 2022.
[156.5] There were no transactions prior to 7 September 2022.

[157] The Yoco machine in question, the deceased’s Standard Bank card as
well Mr Kayembe’s FNB card were handed up as exhibits.
[158] The State thereafter rested its case.

The credibility of the State’s witnesses

[159] The police officers who testified in this trial all had extensive
experience in their respective fields of crime investigations. Their
experience ranged from 11 to 33 years, and their observations such as noting
blood smudges, disturbed crime scenes, evidence of CCTV footage , and
tracking of financial transactions was demonstrative of their objective and
professional handling of the case, lending credibility to their testimony.
[160] The testimony of the several witnesses, in cluding Mrs Haeggman and
her daughter, as well the multiple police officers consistently described the
timeline o ver which the events unfolded from 6 to 30 September; the
conditions of the deceased’s house; how and when the deceased was
ultimately reported missing; and the discovery of the body. Their accounts
were honest descriptions of what they witnessed, without embellishment or
taking away anything to suit any particular narrative.
[161] This corroboration between the civilian and police witnesses
strengthens the reliability of the ir accounts, showing no contradic tions or
material discrepancies in any material respects. If anything, their evidence
laid bare the inconsistencies in the accus ed’s version and the explanations
advanced by him from the time the deceased disappeared to when the
investigations into a missing began , c ulminating in it becoming a murder
investigation.

[162] None of the State’s witnesses presented any direct evidence l inking
the accused to the commission of counts 1 to 5, other than telling the Court
accounts of what happened at the time, from the disappearance of the
deceased to the discovery of his body.
[163] The witnesses did not deviate from their evidence, even after cross
examination.
[164] In all of these circumstances, this Court finds that the credibility of the
State witnesses cannot be impugned.


The legal principles applicable to circumstantial evidence

[165] Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weaker than direct
evidence. Inferences are drawn from circumstantial evidence , and in the
process certain rules of logic must be applied.
[166] The court should always consider the cumulative effect of all the
items of circumstantial evidence. In R v De Vill iers1 it was pointed out that
the court should not consider each circumstance in isolation and then give
the accused t he benefit of any reasonable doubt as to the inference to be
drawn from each single circumstance.
[167] In the locus classicus in regard to circumstantial evidence, R v Blom,2
it was held that in reasoning by inference in a criminal case there are two
cardinal rules of logic which cannot be ignored. The first rule is that the
inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the proved facts: if
it is not, the inference cannot be drawn. The second rule is that th e proved

1 1944 AD 493, at 508-9
2 1939 AD 188, at 202-3

facts should be such that they exclude every reasonable inference from them
save the one sought to be drawn: if these proved facts do not exclude all
other reasonable inferences, then there must be a doubt whether the
inference sought to be drawn is correct.3 This second rule takes account of
the fact that in a criminal case the State should furnish proof beyond
reasonable doubt.
[168] In R v Reddy4 Zulman AJA held:

In assessing circumstantial evidence one needs to be carefu l not to
approach such evidence upon a piece -meal basis and to subject eac h
individual piece of evidence to a consideration of whether it excludes the
reasonable possibility that the explanation given by an accused is true. The
evidence needs to be considered in its totality. It is only then that one can
apply the oft -quoted di ctum in R v Blom 1939 AD 188 at 202 -3 where
reference is made to two cardinal rules of logic which cannot be ignored.

[169] Although a fair amount of criticism has been directed at the Blom
rules by t he authors Du Toit et al in the Commentary on the Crimi nal
Procedure Act (Du Toit) for being far from perfect or even satisfactory and
raising more questions than answers, 5 I do not believe that the facts of this
case necessitate that this Court grapple with the problem questions raised by
the learned authors in their criticism.6
[170] As imperfect as it may be, the Blom test remain s law and is binding
on this Court.


3 R v Sesetse 1981 (3) SA 353 (A), at 360-70
4 1996 (2) SACR 1 (A), at 8C-D
5 Service 68, 2022, 22-30A to 22-34
6 See 22-30B for the ten problematic questions enumerated by the authors.

The defence case

[171] The accused was the only witness who testified in his defence.
[172] His evidence, both in chief and under cross-examination, was far from
satisfactory. It was riddled with inconsistencies, and at times was so
inconsistent as to be obviously untruthful. I have upfront in this judgment
detailed some of the lies - some of whi ch were admitted by the accused
under cross -examination; others emerged from the inconsistencies that
became apparent from earlier opportunities given to the accused to provide
versions under oath; whilst other untruths were inferred from the proved
facts.
[173] The accused was often an evasive and obstructive witness. H e was
mendacious, and this did not assist him. All of these factors rendered him an
unreliable witness, and one without credibility.
[174] In regard to the instances where, as I will outline below, the accused
gave false evidence, I am reminded of S v Mtsweni ,7 where the Appellate
Division (as it then was) considered the effect of a finding that the accused
had given false evidence. The headnote in this case reads as follows:

Although the untruthful evidence or denial of an accused is of importance when it
comes to the drawing of conclusions and the determination of guilt, caution must
be exercised against attaching too much weight thereto. The conclusion that,
because an accused is untruthful, he therefore is probably guilty must especially
be guarded against. Untruthful evidence or a false statement does not always
justify the most extreme con clusion. The weight to be attached thereto must be
related to the circumstances of each case. In considering false testimony by an
accused, the following matters should, inter alia, be taken into account: (a) the

7 1985 (1) SA 590 (A)

nature, extent and materiality of the lies and whether they necessarily point to a
realisation of guilt; (b) the accused’s age, level of development and cultural and
social background and standing in so far as they might provide an explanation for
his lies; (c) possible reasons why people might turn to lying, eg because in a given
case, a lie might sound more acceptable than the truth; (d) the tendency which
might arise in some people to deny the truth out of fear of being held to be
involved in a crime, or because they fear that an admission of their involvement in
an incident or crime, however trivial the involvement, would lead to the danger of
an inference of participation and guilt out of proportion in the truth.

[175] The lies or untruths told by the accused, both by omission and
commission, w ere material and in some instances they were clearly told
because they sounded more acceptable than the truth . The only reasonable
inference to draw from these untruths was that they were told by the accused
because the truth pointed to his guilt.
[176] The accused did not explain in his evidence the inconsistencies, gaps
and contradictions in his previous statements made under oath , first to
Detective Cloete on 29 September 2022 and then to WO Scheepers on 1
October 2022. I have detailed these earlier in this judgment. The Court
cannot accept both versions . One of them, or some aspects of both of them
must be true. Neither one of these different versions, in any event assist the
accused, in terms of providing a reasonable explanation to this Court in
regard to various aspects of his conduct from 6 September until 1 October
2022, in relation to which there is objective evidence that contradicts his
version.
[177] Let us begin with what the accused says he found at the deceased’s
house on 8 September 2022. The deceased was absent from his house, to
which the accused went after th e deceased had failed to meet the accused to

deliver stock. After jumping over the perimeter fence and gaining access to
the house, the accused was met with blood on the floor in the lounge, which
he proceeded to wipe off the floor. Other than to wipe this blood from the
floor, his evidence is that on that first day he took no further steps to look for
the deceased inside the remainder of the house, or to look for any other signs
of foul play in circumstances where he had formed the view, after seeing the
blood, that he was dealing with a crime scene. This Court rejects the
accused’s denial whilst under cross-examination that he told WO Scheepers
that he knew already then that he was dealing with a crime scene. Th at he
said so is corroborated by his own voice on the recorded warning statement,
as well as by the transcript thereof which he admitted matches the recording.
His denial of what he had told WO Scheepers was therefore a naked lie.
Removing the blood was tampering with what was, on the accused’s own
version, a crime scene.
[178] Why did the accused not inform Detective Cloete that he had jumped
over the deceased’s perimeter fence to gain access to the house when he first
went there ; and that he thereafter found blood on the lounge floor and
thereafter removed the deceased’s bank card? The accused did not explain
this at all in his evidence , nor did he explain why he did not inform
Detective Cloete that, after attending at the deceas ed’s house, he received a
threatening WhatsApp message ; or that he had left the deceased with
Bernard on the evening of the 7th of the September.
[179] The accused did not inform Dominique either that he had seen blood
at the deceased’s house which he had wiped off . In evidence he could not
furnish a reasonable explanation for why he did not communicate this to her
– she being the only relative of the deceased’s with whom he was
communicating and who was looking for him.

[180] Furthermore, the accused admitted under cross -examination that he
had lied to Dominique when he told her that he had not been able to gain
access to the deceased’s home on 12 September, and that he therefore had to
jump over the perimeter fence. This was a lie because the accused was by
then already in possession of the keys to the deceased’s house, hav ing taken
possession thereof on 8 September.
[181] The only reasonable inference to draw from all of these failures is that
the accused sought to conceal his own involvement in the disappearance of
the deceased; and he furthermore wanted to conceal what could be construed
as the motives for his role in the deceased’s disappearance.
[182] Which brings us to the next question. Why did the accused remove the
deceased’s bank card from his house? He gave many different answers to
this question during his evidence. First, he needed money in order to buy
stock so that he could continue the Hout Bay market. He told Detective
Cloete, however, on 29 September 2022 that there was enough stock in the
deceased’s garag e and that i s how he was managing to continue with the
Hout Bay market . He furthermore told WO Scheepers on 1 October that
there was then enough stock in the deceased’s garage. When the accused ,
during cross-examination was asked to isolate and mark on the deceased’s
bank statement the transactions that represented purchases for stock, he
instead marked all the transactions that were not payments to LOVEx, and
could not identify a single one of those that was for stock purchases.
[183] Given that , on his own earlier versions - which represents one of the
few cons istencies between what he told Detective Cloe te and WO
Scheepers, and at a time when his own recollection was still fresh - he
repeated that there was enough stock at all times, he was then asked under -
cross examination once again why he took the deceased’s bank card. The

accused then changed his tune - and this was his second version - and said he
took the card in order to keep it safe. In my view the State has established
that the deceased’s Standard Bank card and the funds therein were at their
unsafest when the card was in the possession of the accused. This is evident
from the fact that when the accused took p ossession of the deceased’s bank
card the balance in his bank account was R4 33 586.93. Twenty-two days
later, after the card had be en in the exclusive possession and control of the
accused, the deceased’s bank account was R139 921,70 poorer, with the
balance standing at R293 665.23 on 30 September 2022. It is safe to say that
the accused’s rampage on the deceased’s funds was stopped only by his
arrest on 30 September 2022. Given these undisputed facts, th e only
reasonable inference is that the accused took possession of the dec eased’s
bank card so that he could use the funds therein , which did not belo ng to
him, at will. And he concealed this from Detective Cloete and Dominique in
order to distance any suspicion f rom himself f or the deceased’s
disappearance.
[184] The accused then changed tack when pressed further under cross -
examination to explain why he took the deceased’s bank card , and gave a
third reason which was that he took the deceased’s bank card because he
needed it to pay the toll gate fees over Chapman’s Peak en route to Hout
Bay. When requested to do so, h e could not point to a single transaction on
the bank statement that was for to ll gate fees. The apparent untruthfulness
and inconsistency of the deceased’s answers at times gave this Court the
distinct impression that the accused was making up his version as he w as
going along. He came across as an untruthful witness not only in relation to
this but also other aspects of his evidence. In my view, the only reasonable
inference to draw is that these lies were told in order not to associate him

with any motive for the deceased’s murder, and thereby cover -up his
involvement in it.
[185] In any event, the accused had admitted to WO Scheepe rs in the
warning statement that he knew that the use of the deceased’s bank card was
a criminal offence.
[186] We then move on to the aspect of why the accused did not report the
deceased to SAPS as missing, for some twenty two days. His answer, both
in his evidence in chief and under cross-examination, was that he was too
busy running the Hout Bay market to report his own father figure as a
missing person to the police – for twenty two days. The difficulty with this
answer is that on the accused’ s own version, the Hout Bay market operated
only on Fridays, Saturday s and Sundays. He therefore could have reported
the deceased missing from Monday 12 to Thursday15 September; from
Monday 19 to Thursday 22 September , and from Monday 26 September
onwards.
[187] When Dominique , whom he regarded as his mother and referred to
her as “Mom” in their communications together, asked h im to report the
deceased missing on 12 September, the accused deflected instead. He
informed her that all was well at the house; and further that he had received
a message from the decease d to the effect that he was alright, was in
Johannesburg and no -one should be told about this. He did not tell WO
Scheepers about this message in the w arning statement. This fact, coupled
with the fact that the cell number that the message was sent from contained
no evidence and activity whatsoever except the message referred to, and
appeared to have been active only for 3 to 4 days before it went dead , lends
credence to the State’s submission that the only reasonable inference t o be
drawn from these facts is that the message was a fabrication by the accused,

designed to create the impression in the mind of Dominque that there was
nothing to worry about as the deceased was then still alive and well.
[188] The accused did tell Detective Cloete about the above message. In
my view, the only reasonable inference to draw from the fact that he told
Detective Cloete ab out this message, and not WO S cheepers, is that the
accused wanted to create in the mind of Detective Cloete , the impression
that the deceased had not in fact disappeared , and there was therefore no
missing person for the accused to report.
[189] When Dominique asked the accused again on 20 September to report
the deceased as missing, his response to her was that he would do so the next
day. He did not do so because , he stated in evidence, he was too busy with
the Hout Bay market. Once again the difficulty with this was that the Hout
Bay market would not occur again until Friday 23 September. In response
to Dominque’s request he could have reported on 20 September, 21
September (as he said he would) or 22 September if running the Hout Bay
market prevented him from doing so.
[190] The activities gleaned from the deceased’s bank statement during
these dates give one some perspective as to what, in fact, the accused was
busy doing on those dates. On 20 September, amounts of R500 were tapped
on a Yoco machine from the deceased’s bank account in favour of LOVEx
20 times, withdrawing an amount of R10 000from the deceased’s funds. On
21 September, LOVEx was paid amounts of R500 17 times (amounting to
R8 500.00), and on 22 September, LOVEx was paid R500 21 times with the
deceased’s bank card via a Yoco machine, withdrawing R10 500 on that one
day. It is evident therefore that on those three days when the accused was not
involved in the Hout Bay market and could have reported the deceased
missing but did not do so , that he was busy alright . He was b usy

withdrawing R29 000 from the deceased’s bank account in the space of three
days.
[191] As we know, and he admitted this under cross -examination, he lied to
Mrs Haeggman that he had reported the deceased missing on 22 September.
In his evidence he stated that he had meant to report , but that he was too
busy and Mrs Haeggman beat him to it. He could not however, explain why
he had lied to Mrs Haeggman and told her that he had already reported.
[192] When it was pointed out to the deceased that as busy as he was, this
did not prevent him fro m going to pubs and using the deceased’s funds
during those days, his answer was that it would have been too late for him to
go a police station to report after he came out of the pubs. However, when it
was pointed out to him that police stations remain open day and night,
effectively 24 hours a day, the accused could not take the matter further.
[193] The accused then changed tack again. This time he said he could not
report the deceased as mis sing because his motorbike, which the deceased
had bought for him, had broken down. When asked by the Court why he did
not use e -hailing services to go and report during this period when his bike
was broken, his response was that this did not cross his mind at the time.
[194] There is the question of the threatening WhatsApp message that the
accused told WO Scheepers about. It will be recalled that this is the message
that the accused allegedly received on 8 September after he ret urned from
the deceased’s house, which said: “For what you have seen, if you say it out,
then I am coming after you and your wife.” The accused told WO Scheepers
that he could not go to the police for fear that he was going to be hunted, or
his wife was going to be hunted. Not only did the accused not tell Detective
Cloete and Dominique about this message ; the more worrying factor is how
he dealt with this message in his evidence before this Court.

[195] He did not testify at all about this so-called threatening message in his
evidence in chief , even though this had been testified about by, and his
version was put to , the State’s witnesses. In cross -examination, he first
testified that the message did not come to his mind when he was giving
evidence in chief, because he was responding to questions from his counsel
and she did not ask him about it. Then he confirmed that yes, he did receive
the threatening message and though he was scared at first, after some time
he was no longer scared because he was alone at his house (presumably
meaning that his wife, who was included in the threat, was not there) .
Thereafter, the accused denied that the threatening message was the reason
that he did not report the deceased missing to the police. Then again, the
accused testified that he d id not recall telling WO Scheepers that the
threatening message was the reason that he did not report the deceased
missing to the police. And finally, about this same message, the accused
testified that he did not tell WO Scheepers that the threatening message was
the reason that he did not report the deceased missing.
[196] In my view, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from all
these inconsistencies and different versions is that, if the accused received
the threatening message at all, it was not the cause for why the accused did
not report the deceased missing to the police. Assuming in the accused’s
favour that the threatening message was sent to him, it clearly, on his own
version, did not achieve its desired effect . He was not afraid, and so it did
not prevent him from reporting the deceased missing to the police.
[197] Then finally, there are the 258 payments from the deceased’s bank
account to the merchant LOVEx via a Yoco machine. A total of some
R139 921, 70 was paid to LOVEx . No payments to LOVEx had ever been

made from the deceased’s bank account before 8 September , and they
continued until 30 September 2022 when the accused was arrested.
[198] Whilst at the same time admitting that from 8 until 30 September it
was he and he alone who had possession and use of the deceased’s bank
card, the accused nevertheless denie s any knowledge of the payments to
LOVEx. He denies ever making them. He admits that he knows Bel. When
confronted with the WhatsApp conversations between hi m and Bel , in
particular on 13 September where Bel sent him the link to the LOVExLight
Yoco machine, the accused said he could not remember this. He flatly, and
baldly without any further explanation, denied any association with or
knowledge of LOVEx or what it was , or ever having tapped the deceased’s
card to pay LOVEx , which he said he knew nothing about and does not
know what it is.
[199] These are the prove d facts in relation to LOVEx and the Yoco
machine.
[200] When the accused was arrested, he had in his possession the FNB
bank card belonging to his friend Bel, as well a Yoco machine owned by Bel
and linked to the trading name LOVExLIGHT. The bank account linked to
this Yoco machine is an FNB account belongin g to Bel , and the bank card
linked to Bel’s FNB account is the same FNB bank card that was in the
accused’s possession when he was arrested. Furthermore, the bank
statement obtained of Bel’s FNB account show payments from a Yoco
machine from about 12 September until the end of that month. The
evidence is that there were no such transactions using the Yoco machine
before 7 September 2022.
[201] The accused’s bare denials, the admitted facts as well as the proved
facts lead this Court to the only reasonable inference being that the accused ,

who had the Yoco machine in his possession , used it to facilitate the
syphoning of funds from the deceased’s bank accoun t into Bel’s bank
account, the funds in which the accused also had control of and access to, by
virtue of the fact that when he was arrested in possession of the Bel’s bank
card that was linked to his bank account , which was in turn linked to the
Yoco machine.

Conclusion

[202] The question in this trial was whether the accused is responsible for
killing the deceased, robbing him of his property and trying to cover his
crimes. In my view the evidence , taken as a whole , is inconsistent with the
accused’s innocence and the State has proved this , and the accused’s guilt,
beyond reasonable doubt.
[203] The evidence establishes that the accused planned and carefully
calculated the commission of his crimes, in that already on 6 September
2022 whilst the deceased was still alive, the accused reached out to his
friend Bel requesting his Yoco machi ne which he said he needed by the
coming weekend, by which time the evidence shows that the accused was in
control of the deceased’s bank account. And the deceased was dead.
[204] The Yoco machine is the tool which facilitated the accused’s theft of
the majority of the funds stolen from the deceased’s bank account during
that month of September 2022. His actions , and the killing in particular,
were evidently planned, premeditated and carefully calculated to enable him
the longest time possible to achieve his motive, namely, depleting the
deceased’s bank account of the funds in it.

[205] The accused failed to report the deceased as missing and strung
Dominique along, as it were, again in order to give himself the longest time
possible to syphon the funds from the deceased’s account. He did this freely
and wantonly, safe in the knowledge that the deceased could not do anything
about it. He continued running the deceased’s business and in that way too,
he was acquiring monies paid into the deceased’s bank account therefrom
which rightfully belonged to the deceased , and then syphon ing those funds
out using the Yoco machine. He did this brazenly, emboldened by his
knowledge that he knew where the deceased was, and there would be no
come backs from him.
[206] Along the way, the accused covered up his crime s first by removing
blood at the scene, and then through a series of lies including fabricating
WhatsApp messages to create the impression that the decea sed was still
alive. The accused’s ultimate act of concealment of his crime was the
burying of the deceased’s body in a shallow grave in his own back yard.
[207] Although there is no direct evidence to this effect, the entirety of the
evidence taken as a whole; the entire chain of events from 6 September 2022
until the discovery of the deceased ’s body, points to this being the only
reasonable inference to be drawn from the proved facts. The accused had
exclusive access to the deceased’s property from 8 September until about 20
September when Mrs Haeggman started going to the house. During that
period, the accused had plenty of opportunity to bury the deceased’s body in
the backyard. It can be inferred, based on the results of the post-mortem, that
the accused’s body had been buried for a period of between two to three
weeks, which corelates with the period when the accused had the
opportunity that arose from his exclusive access to the property.

[208] The conclusion th at the accused killed the deceased by repeatedly
stabbing him with a sharp object and possibly strangling him, w hilst
motivated by his desire and intention t o steal the deceased’ s money from
him, and that he covered up his tracks until he could no longer do so , is
consistent with all the proved facts , which exclude every reasonable
inference from them except that it was the accused who committed these
crimes. This is the cumulativ e effect of all the items of circumstantial
evidence that have been placed before this Court.
[209] In the circumstances, the accused is found guilty of the following
charges, summarised and fully set out in the indictment (and earlier defined
in this judgment).

[209.1] Count 1 – murder, read with the provisions of section
51(1) of Act 105 of 1997.
[209.2] Count 2 – robbery with aggravating circumstances.
[209.3] Count 3 – defeating or obstructing the course of justice,
read with the provisions of section 256 of Act
51 of 1977.
[209.4] Count 4 - defeating or obstructing the course of justice,
read with the provisions of section 256 of Act
51 of 1977.
[209.5] Count 5 - defeating or obstructing the course of justice,
read with the provisions of section 256 of Act
51 of 1977.
[209.6] Count 6 – theft.
[209.7] Count 7 – contravening section 49(1) read with sections
1,

` 9(4), 32 and 34 of the Immigration Act 13 of
2002.

_____________________________
N MAYOSI
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT


Appearances
For the State: Advocate Maki
National Prosecuting Authority
For Accused: Pauline Andrews
Legal Aid South Africa