IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
[EASTERN CAPE DIVISION: BHISHO]
Case No. CC30/2024
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
MELUMZI BONKOLO Accused
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
JOLWANA J
[1] The accused was charged with two counts of robbery with aggravating
circumstances as defined in section 1(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977
(the CPA) 1 and two counts of murder. These charges related to two separate
incidents, the first of which occurred on 29 March 2023 at Mngqesha Location in
1 Section 1 reads:
(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise indicates –
‘aggravating circumstances in relation to –
(a) …
(b) robbery, or attempted robbery, means –
(i) the wielding of a firearm or any other dangerous weapon;
(ii) the infliction of grievous bodily harm; or
(iii) a threat to inflict grievous bodily harm,
by the offender or an accomplice on the occasion when the offence is committed whether before
or during or after the commission of the offence.’
\.D/11
a
~ .t
~ .
• ,r
' ~ &.,~
::t. ( J/ SI_)\)
Dimbaza, in the district of Zwelitsha. The second incident occurred on 1 January
2025 at Thembisa in Dimbaza, still in the district of Zwelitsha. In respect of all the
charges, the State invoked the provisions of section 51 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (the Minimum Sentences Act) about which the accused
confirmed that his legal representative had advised him about its implications in the
event of a conviction.
[2] The accused pleaded guilty to all the charges preferred against him. His legal
representative handed up to the court a statement by the accused in terms of section
112(2) in which the accused sets out the facts which he admits and on the basis of
which he pleaded guilty. After considering the contents of the said statement, the
accused was convicted on two counts of aggra vated robbery and two counts of
murder. In Hanisi2 the court explained the essence of a statement by the accused in
terms of section 112(2) and how the court should go about dealing with such a
statement. The court said:
“A court considering a statement made in terms of s 112(2) exercises its discretion to
determine whether the statement admits all the elements of the offence in question.
If it is not satisfied that that is so, it must question the accused as set out in section
112(1)(b) to clarify any ma tter raised in the written plea. If it determines that the
statement is satisfactory and admits all the elements of the offence, it shall convict
the accused on the plea of guilty. When the written plea detailing the facts on which
the plea is premised is accepted by the prosecution, it constitutes a factual matrix on
the strength of which an accused will be convicted and the sentence imposed. The
written plea is aimed at ensuring that the court is provided with an adequate factual
basis to make a determ ination on whether the admissions made by the accused
support the plea of guilty tendered.”
[3] The provisions of section 51 of the Minimum Sentences Act are the foundation
[3] The provisions of section 51 of the Minimum Sentences Act are the foundation
upon which all considerations of appropriate sentences are built where this section is
2 Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng Division Pretoria v Hanisi 2018 (2) SACR 230 (SCA) at para 7.
invoked and the court is satisfied that the factual matrix as disclosed in the guilty
plea statement establishes the jurisdictional facts upon which minimum sentences
can be considered. The fact that section 51 is invoked and the basis upon whic h it is
invoked is disclosed in the indictment are, in themselves, insufficient for the Minimum
Sentences Act to be applicable. More is required which may be evidence and a
finding by the court in its verdict that jurisdictional facts relied upon in the in dictment
have been established by the evidence tendered by the State where the accused
pleaded not guilty. In the event of a plea of guilty statement tendered in terms of
section 112(2) and accepted by the State, the State must ensure that the statement
does in fact deal with or disclose the basis on which it invoked the provisions of the
Minimum Sentences Act. If the statement does not, the State has a choice not to
accept the plea of guilty statement, otherwise its reliance on the provisions of section
51 becomes tenuous at best. Similarly with an oral plea of guilty by the accused, the
jurisdictional facts have to be established on which section 51 is relied upon for the
minimum sentences to be imposed. In the event of the plea of guilty referred to in
section 112(1)(b) of the CPA, the court must question the accused with reference to
the facts alleged in the indictment. It goes without saying that the facts alleged in the
indictment include not only the allegations of how and when the offence was
committed, but also the facts relating more specifically to the basis on which the
State has invoked the provisions of section 51.
[4] For example, if the basis on which section 51 is invoked is that the offence was
planned or premeditated, the court must questio n the accused to establish if he
admits that aspect of the allegations against him. This is necessary because it is the
bedrock on which a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion will be based.
bedrock on which a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion will be based.
Similarly with a section 112(2) statement, it would be un just for the State to accept
the statement which does not deal with or disclose facts that establish premeditation
or prior planning where section 51 has been invoked on that basis. Where the
statement does not deal with that aspect, section 112(2) does gi ve the court a
discretion to question the accused for purposes of it being satisfied that the offence
was in fact premeditated.
[5] Where all else fails in that the court has not questioned the accused on this
aspect of the indictment despite a written ple a of guilty statement being silent,
section 112(3) entitles the State to tender the necessary evidence as would establish
premeditation for purposes of sentence. This is very clear even from the terms in
which section 112(3) of the CPA is couched which provides:
“Nothing in this section shall prevent the prosecutor from presenting evidence on any
aspect of the charge, or the court from hearing evidence, including evidence or
statement by or on behalf of the accused with regard to sentence or from questioning
the accused on any aspect of the case for purposes of determining an appropriate
sentence.”
[5] The question of premeditation or any basis upon which the provisions of section
51 of the Minimum Sentences Act are invoked are, in my view, included in the
phrase “any aspect of the charge ” as that aspect of the charge is very relevant for
purposes of determining an appropriate sentence. It is particularly important and is
also trite that before an accused pleads to the charges, he is informed of the
possible minimum sentences being imposed should he be convicted of the offence
charged. This enables him or her to make up his mind or even reconsider his or her
decision regarding whatever plea he or she may have intended to enter.
[6] In this case all the facts on the basis of which section 51 of the Minimum
Sentences Act was invoked are detailed in the accused’s section 112 statement. In
respect of the two counts of robbery, it is clear from the accused’s statement that the
robberies included the inflictio n of grievous bodily harm on both victims. The chief
postmortem findings of Dr John who conducted the postmortem examination of the
deceased in count 1 were that the deceased suffered multiple external injuries, skull
fractures, subdual bleeding and that h is internal organs were pale. His cause of
death was head injury. This is in line with the accused’s section 112 statement in
which he says that he hit the deceased hard on his head twice with an empty bottle
and the deceased fell to the ground and fainted . As he was bleeding profusely, the
accused dragged him to a grassy area far from his car.
[7] In respect of the robbery of the deceased in count 5, the chief postmortem
findings of Dr Ntloko who conducted the postmortem examination were that the
deceased had a ligature mark around the neck, a hematoma on her forehead and a
5cm occiput laceration. The cause of death was strangulation asphyxia. This is
aligned with the accused’s plea of guilty statement in which he says that he wrapped
his arm around her neck area and strangled her with it until they both fell on the floor
and her head hit the floor. They continued struggling on the floor but he overpowered
her and continued strangling her until she lost power and let loose of her phone.
[8] The basis set out in the indictment for the invocation of section 51 of the Minimum
Sentences Act in respect of the murder charges was that in respect of count 1, the
murder of Mr Mtotonga, the death of the deceased was caused by the accused after
he committed robbery with aggravating circumstances as defined in section 1(1)(b)
of the CPA. The facts set out by the accused in his statement are that after he had
assaulted the deceased with an empty bottle and dragged him away from his car
after he had fallen down and fainted, he left him there, went back to the deceased’s
car which he drove towards Stutterheim where he intended to sell it. In respect of the
car which he drove towards Stutterheim where he intended to sell it. In respect of the
deceased in count 5, the basis for the invocation of section 51 was that the death of
the deceased was caused by the accu sed before, during and after committing
robbery. The facts that the accused sets out in his statement are that after he
entered Sinazo’s home where the deceased was, he found the door wide open, got
inside the house and found the deceased lying on a couch . He carefully approached
her, took off her wristwatch. He also tried to take the deceased’s iPhone which was
in her hand which she was holding tightly. The deceased woke up, stood up and they
wrestled over the phone. He then wrapped her hands around her n eck area and
strangled her. That strangling led to her ultimate death. All these facts as set out by
the accused in his statement bring the circumstances of the commission of the
murders within the purview of section 51 of the Minimum Sentence Act.
[9] In mitigation of sentence the accused did not testify. Instead, his legal
representative made submissions on his behalf. He started by indicating to the court
that he has been instructed by the accused that he tenders his profuse apologies to
both families fo r the pain they went through as a result of his actions. He
understands that life is the most precious gift that anyone is given by God which is
also guaranteed and protected in section 11 of the Constitution 3. Furthermore, not
only were the lives of the two deceased persons brutally taken away, their families
and children were deprived of their loved ones to whom they looked up to. It was
submitted that these crimes are unfortunately very prevalent. The deceased in count
5 was a vulnerable person, being a woman. The victim impact statements were
furnished to the accused and were explained to him. Therefore, he is aware of how
they feel about what he did to them as expressed by them in their own words in their
victim impact statements.
3 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
[10] With regard to t he accused’s personal circumstances, it was submitted that he
was born on 27 July 2003. Therefore, he is now 22 years of age. At the time when
he committed the offences in counts 1 and 2 on 29 March 2023, he was about 20
years old and at the time he commit ted the offences in counts 4 and 5 on 1 January
2025, he was just over 21 years old. He was raised by a single mother who also
unfortunately passed away when he was just 9 years old. He does not know his
father, he has never seen him, and he played no role in his upbringing. The absence
of his father created a void in his life, so went the submissions.
[11] His mother was unemployed and did odd jobs trying to do her best to provide for
her three children. The accused had two siblings, and he is the middle child. His
older sibling is his brother who is 26 years old now. His brother went to school up to
grade 11 and due to financial constraints, he could not go further with his education.
His younger sibling was his sister who passed away. After his mother p assed away
his maternal grandparents who are still alive looked after him and his brother. They
are unemployed and depend on old age grant provided by the government. With old
age, his grandparents suffer from diseases like hypertension and diabetes.
[12] His uncle played a father figure role to them. He was also unemployed, but he
ran a tavern. At some point his uncle asked him and his brother to assist him in the
tavern. He started working at his uncle’s tavern at a young age of 19 years. This is
how he was, at a younger age, introduced to alcohol. While the tavern did not make
much money, it enabled them to put food on the table. In 2023 his uncle was shot
and killed by criminals. After his sister and mother, his uncle was the third close
relative to pass away. The accused schooling went up to grade 9 and he had to drop
out due to financial constraints. Subsequent to his uncle’s passing, he had to do odd
out due to financial constraints. Subsequent to his uncle’s passing, he had to do odd
jobs working in local spaza shops where he earned R250.00 a week. He used some
of this money to contri bute to the upbringing of his child. The mother of this child is
still doing grade 12 and is orphaned. It was submitted that the accused said that if he
were to meet his grandparents he would apologise to them and in this regard he has
asked his legal representative to go to his home and apologise on his behalf to them.
[13] It was submitted that he is a first offender. He has spent about eight months in
pre-sentence incarceration. When he met the police, he made a clean breast to them
leading to the body of the deceased in count 1 being found. Where the incident
occurred, there was no one else and there were no witnesses. The vehicle of the
deceased was found with no damage, still in the same condition in which it was
when he robbed it. In respect of the second incident, he went to his uncle after about
six days and asked him to take him to the police station after he told his uncle what
he had done. His uncle decided to phone the police and that is how he got arrested.
During the first five days after the incident, he was afraid to confess for his actions
until he summoned enough courage on the 6 th day to confess to his uncle which he
did. It was submitted that in both incidents, he owned up and took responsibility for
his actions by admitting that he comm itted the offences on his very first encounters
with the police. This was long before he even met any lawyer. Even when he had a
consultation with his legal representative, he immediately made it clear that he
wanted to plead guilty to these offences. When he appeared in this Court, he
pleaded guilty and did not try to lie about his actions.
[14] It was submitted that the accused was genuinely remorseful as evidenced by his
actions on his very first interactions with the police up to the point where he plea ded
guilty in this Court. It was submitted that alcohol consumption affected his judgment
and therefore his moral blameworthiness. In both incidents, as detailed in his plea of
and therefore his moral blameworthiness. In both incidents, as detailed in his plea of
guilty statement, he had overindulged on alcohol. In the final analysis it was
submitted that the purposes of punishment should be considered without
overemphasizing one over the other and that mercy should also be factored in, in the
court’s exercise of its sentencing discretion in the consideration of an appropriate
sentence. It wa s submitted that the facts of this case point to the existence of
substantial and compelling circumstances justifying the imposition of sentences that
are less than the ones prescribed in the Minimum Sentences Act.
[15] Counsel for the State made submissio ns in aggravation of sentence. He started
by handing up to the court two victim impact statements which were admitted into the
record with the concurrence of the legal representative of the accused. Without going
into a lot of detail about their contents, it is clear from those statements that the two
deceased persons were not only good members of the society, they also both
contributed to the financial well -being of their families. Their deaths have left their
families and children basically destitute as they were pillars of their own families. The
pain and a deep sense of loss is made more pronounced by the fact that the 13 year
old son of the deceased in count 5 keeps on asking about his mother and cries for
her when she is never going to come back. His p erformance at school has dropped
and he prefers to be alone due to the trauma of having lost a mother at his very
young age. He now has to navigate life without his mother due to the senseless
killing of his mother. The death of the deceased has caused ad ditional financial
burden to the deceased’s mother who now has to provide for all the financial needs
of her deceased daughter’s child and grandson once again due to the senseless
actions of the accused. The lives of the members of the deceased’s families have
been changed for the worse with an unbearable and never -ending pain of losing
loved ones.
[16] The State submitted that this Court should remember that the deceased in count
1 was killed after giving a lift to the accused. The accused lured the deceas ed out of
his route under the pretext that he needed assistance in transporting his goods. The
accused again lied to the deceased by indicating that he needed to pass water. The
deceased, believing the accused, stopped is vehicle on the side of the road on ly to
be hit so hard by the accused that he fell to the ground, fainted while bleeding
profusely. He was dragged away from his car and left there to die without any
possibility of medical assistance once the accused took his vehicle away which was
destined to be sold in Stutterheim. The death of the deceased in count 5 also started
with aggravated robbery of her wristwatch and her iPhone. She was brutally killed for
her phone while fighting to save her dear life from the accused. Both deceased died
brutally and senselessly. All the facts in this case point to very serious offences
which were committed with extreme brutality. This was done for no other reason than
to satisfy the accused selfish desires to rob the deceased of their possessions and in
the process, he killed them senselessly. There is no debate about the seriousness of
the offences and the society’s abhorrence and its clarion call for harsher punishment
for violent and senseless crimes which tend to be committed mercilessly.
[17] In Tsotetsi4 the court explained in some detail the principles of sentencing that
must be upper most in the mind of a sentencing court in its exercise of its sentencing
discretion. The court said:
“(a) The sentence must be appropriate, based on the circumstances of the case.
It must not be too light or too severe.
(b) There must be an appropriate nexus between the sentence, and the severity
of the crimes, full consideration must be given to all mitigating and
aggravating factors surrounding the offender. The senten ce should thus
aggravating factors surrounding the offender. The senten ce should thus
4 S v Tsotetsi 2019 (2) SACR 594 (WCC) at page 604.
reflect the blameworthiness of the offender and be proportional. These are
the first two elements of the triad enumerated in S v Zinn.
(c) Regard must be had to the interests of society (the third element of the Zinn
triad). This involves a consideration of the protection society so desperately
needs. The interests of society are reflected in deterrence, prevention,
rehabilitation and retribution.
(d) Deterrence, the important purpose of punishment has two components, being
both the deterrence of the accused from re-offending and deterrence of would
be offenders.
(e) Rehabilitation is a purpose of punishment only if there is the potential to
achieve it.
(f) Retribution being a society’s expression of outrage at the crime, remains of
importance. If the crime is viewed by society as an abhorrence, then the
sentence should reflect that. Retribution is also expressed as the notion that
the punishment must fit the crime.
(g) Finally, mercy is a factor. A humane and balanced approach must be
followed”
[18] There is an aspect of the accused having consumed alcohol when he committed
these offences which requires special mention. On the facts of this case, it is clear
that the accused did consume some alcohol before he committed both incidents. The
question which I will attempt to answer in this judgment is whether when each time
an accused person gets intoxicated and commits offences, he is automatically
entitled to a lenient sentence. I have already detailed the facts of how these offences
were committed elsewhere in this judgment. I do not intend to repeat those facts.
There is another important aspect of these crimes which the State highlighted. That
is the fact that at some point after he had been arrested by the police, he was
granted bai l after having spent some time in custody. However, the little time he
spent in custody did nothing to open his eyes to his inexcusable inability to control
his behaviour after alcohol consumption. As a first offender that he was then, he was
not shocked e nough so that his behaviour is changed to be more aligned with a
sense of remorse for killing the deceased in count 1. Instead, in just over a year
later, he committed other similarly brutal offences and robbed and killed the
deceased in count 5, a defenceless woman whom he found sleeping.
[19] This is not to deny the effect of alcohol consumption about which in Ndlovu5 the
court said:
“Intoxication is one of humanity’s age -old frailties, which may, depending on the
circumstances, reduce the moral blameworthiness of a crime, and may even evoke a
touch of compassion through the perceptive understanding that man, seeking solace
or pleasure in liquor, may easily over -indulge and thereby do the things which sober
he would not do.”
[20] The full court of this Division had occasion to express itself on the issue of
criminal conduct under circumstances of intoxication. In Mpongoshe6 Lowe J said:
“As to intoxication as a relevant sentencing factor the learned Judge effectively
dismissed this completely on the basis that this was an opportunistic contrived
defence of criminal incapacity. Crucially having correctly noted the above, the
learned Judge continued as follows:
‘Whilst it is so that there was evidence that you consumed alcohol and that it
affected your faculties to a limited extent, in my view it did not make any
appreciable difference to your moral reprehensibility.’
In my view it is in this conclusion that the learned Judge underemphasized the
role which alcohol played in thi s event. It must be accepted on the overall
evidence that the appellant was moderately drunk to the extent that he was
staggering at the time having consumed quite a considerable quantity of Paarl
Perle alcohol drink. The question is the extent to which this reduced his moral
blameworthiness.”
5 S v Ndlovu 1965(4) SA 692 (A) at 695 C-D.
6 Mpongoshe v S (CA24/2019) [2020] ZAECGHC 8 (11 February 2020) para 26 to 27.
[21] There is therefore no doubt that alcohol consumption is a relevant consideration.
However, having said that, when it comes to the second incident which culminated in
the robbery and the killing of the deceased in count 5, there are other weighty
considerations. It matters that the accused was out on bail and in committing these
offences, he violated bail conditions by committing further robbery and murder
offences and this he did a little more than a year after the first incident in which he
robbed and killed the deceased in count 1. Counsel for the State submitted that at
the time he committed the offences in counts 4 and 5, the accused had been served
with the indictment for the offences in counts 1 and 2. He had been advised that he
would be appearing in this Court, with his matter having been transferred from the
magistrate’s court to this Court. He, nevertheless, was still not guarded on his
behaviour and went on to murder a defenceless woman in the home of Sinazo, the
very same Sinazo he had been drinking with. Therefore, the aggravated robbery and
the murder of the deceased in count 5 by the accused in circumstances in which he
knew that he was facing murder charges and would be appearing in court in a few
months’ time completely puts counts 4 and 5 in a different plane altogether in my
view.
[22] Even worse, his conduct brought the administration of justice into disrepute. This
is so because it is difficult to imagine how the deceased in count 5 could have been
killed had the accused not been granted bail for the offences in counts 1 and 2. It
must therefore follow that had he not been granted bail and given a chance to be
with his family, he would not have robbed and killed the deceased in count 5. Surely
that must have an effect on how he ought to be punished for the offences he
committed after he had been granted bail and in this regard the society experts no
less from this Court. The distinction between the two incidents in the consideration
of appropriate sentences is exactly what the court said in Rabie7 about 50 years ago
in which Corbett JA said:
“A judicial officer should not approach punishment in a spirit of anger because being
human, that will make it difficult for him to achieve that delicate ba lance between the
crime, the criminal and the interests of society which his task and the objects of
punishment demand of him. Nor should he strive after severity, nor, on the other
hand, surrender to misplaced pity. While not flinching from firmness whe re firmness
is called for, he should approach his task with a humane and compassionate
understanding of human frailties and the pressures of society which contribute to
criminality. It is in the context of this attitude of mind that I see mercy as an elem ent
in the determination of the appropriate punishment in the light of all the
circumstances of the particular case.”
[23] There is also the complex issue of remorse to which I alluded earlier and which
was raised pertinently by the accused’s legal represe ntative. To understand what
remorse is in the context of the criminal justice system and the complexities of this
matter, the well-known case of Matyityi8 comes to mind. The court said:
“Many accused person persons might very well regret their conduct but that does not
without more translate to genuine remorse. Remorse is a gnawing pain of
conscience for the plight of another. Thus, genuine contrition can only come from an
appreciation of and acknowledgement of the extent of one’s error. Whether the
offender is sincerely remorseful and not simply feeling sorry for himself or herself at
having been caught is a factual question. It is to the surrounding actions of the
accused rather than what he says in court that one should rather look. In order for
the remorse to be a valid consideration, the penitence must be sincere, and the
accused must take the court into his or her confidence. Until and unless that
accused must take the court into his or her confidence. Until and unless that
happens the genuineness of the contrition alleged to exist cannot be determined.”
[24] In this case the accused elected not to take the court into his confidence by
testifying. This has left many unanswered questions which the families of the
deceased would have hoped he would provide answers to so that they may get
7 S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (A) at 861-2.
8 S v Matyityi 2011(1) SACR 40 (SCA) para 13.
closure. For instance, in his section 112 statement the events leading to the death of
the deceased in count 5 is, as narrated by him, worth repeating. They are that at
some point the deceased suddenly woke up and stood up and he and the deceased
wrestled over her phone. He strangled her with his arm on her neck. They both fell
down in the struggle for the iPhone of the deceased and the struggle for the phone
continued on the floor. The question is, why did the accused not let go of her phone
and run away. Instead, he overpowered the defencel ess woman who was fighting a
courageous struggle against an evidently determined criminal, the accused. He
continued strangling her until she lost power and let go of her phone. Clearly, when
she let go of the phone, she was obviously dead with life having been squeezed out
of her. When he left, the deceased had no sign of life. But why did he have to kill her
for a phone, even an iPhone.
[25] After scaling the wall of Sinazo’s home to escape from the crime scene but
before he jumped over to the other side of the wall, the accused was seen by Sinazo
who asked him what was going on to which he said he did not know and ran away.
Despite having been seen by Sinazo leaving her home and running away where
there was a dead body of the deceased, it took the accused the whole six days for
him to confess to his uncle and somewhat take responsibility for his actions. That
speaks to a cunningly calculating character of the deceased who clearly would have
avoided accountability for his actions had he not been seen by Sin azo leaving her
home where he had just killed the deceased. Surely, when Sinazo arrived at her
home, she found the lifeless body of the deceased on the ground. The accused has
not taken the witness stand to explain what he was doing for almost a full week. He
has not explained why later that day or on any of the five days he did not tell the truth
about what he did. There is no explanation from him what is it that on the sixth day,
drove him to go to his uncle and tell him that he had killed the deceased in count 5.
[26] With all of this factual matrix and regard being had to all the personal
circumstances of the accused, I find that the first incident is fundamentally different
from the second one. It was the first incident that was his very first interacti on with
the criminal justice system. When he was arrested on that occasion, he immediately
admitted to the offences and took the police to where the body of the deceased was.
He then took advantage of the delays in the criminal justice system which ultima tely
led to him being granted bail at some point. He then committed the offences in the
second incident. This had the effect of bringing the criminal justice system into
disrepute for granting bail to a dangerous criminal who, at that stage, was
considered innocent pending his trial which was why he was granted bail. Only for
him to commit another senseless robbery and murder.
[27] He says that he asked his uncle to approach the family of the deceased and ask
for pardon on his behalf after he was arrested. He is clearly trying to bargain with the
criminal justice system again in my view. If he really wanted to take the family of the
deceased into his confidence, why did he not the take advantage of the opportunity
presented by his trial and take the court into his confidence by giving a detailed
account of what actually happened. He could then in the process, have apologised in
his own words to the families directly or to the court if the family was not in
attendance. Therefore, his alcohol consumption in respect of the first incident and
at that stage, being his very first brush with the law are significant factors at a
relatively young age of twenty years when he committed those offences. The fact
that he then immediately told the police that he killed t he deceased and took them to
that he then immediately told the police that he killed t he deceased and took them to
where his body was is very relevant. All these are, in my view, the substantial and
compelling circumstances when considered together, that would make the minimum
sentences in respect of the first incident disproportionate con sidering that life
imprisonment is in fact the ultimate form of punishment. However, his overall conduct
after that incident, even as he had consumed alcohol when he committed the
offences in the second incident, point to a very dark and dangerous criminal mind.
He seems to be cunningly bargaining with the criminal justice system in addition to
having brought it into significant disrepute by committing further serious offences
while out on bail which makes his remorse for the second incident contrived.
[28] I enquired from counsel for the State whether the families of the deceased were
taken through any post trauma counselling subsequent to the brutal killing of their
loved ones. Regrettably, the answer was in the negative. I considered it appropriate
that even at this late stage, such trauma counselling should be provided to them by
the State until there are clear indications that those affected are better able to cope
with their loss and carry on with their lives without their loved ones. Mr Gula, counsel
for the State took upon himself to ensure that this happens. That is highly
appreciated as it is very important that victims of crimes receive and are equipped
with copying mechanisms and are assisted accordingly. In addition to that, I have
decided to make an appropriate order directing the head of office of the Dimbaza
Department of Social Development offices, Mrs Mamela Baza and the head of office
of the King Williams Town Department of Social Development offices, Ms Khusela
Xabe, to ensure that counselli ng sessions are provided to the families of the
deceased, especially minor children.
[29] In the result, the accused is sentenced as follows:
1. In respect of count 2 you are sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
2. In respect of count 1 you are sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
3. In respect of count 4 you are sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
4. In respect of count 5 you are sentenced to life imprisonment.
6. In terms of section 103 of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000 you are declared
unfit to process a firearm.
7. The head of office or person in charge in the Department of Social Development in
Dimbaza, Mrs Mamela Baza, is ordered to ensure that the affected and close
member of the family of the deceased in count 1, especially minor children,
receive the necessary and appropriate counselling.
8. The head of office or person in charge in the Department of Social Development,
King Williams Town Ms Khusela Xabe, is directed to ensure that the affected and
close members of the family of the deceased in count 5, especially the minor
child, receive the necessary and appropriate counselling.
_________________________
M.S. JOLWANA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearance
Counsel for the State : M.G. Gula
Instructed by : NPA
BHISHO
Attorney for the accused : Z. Nomlala
Instructed by : Legal Aid South Africa
BHISHO
Date heard : 03 September 2025
Date delivered : 04 September 2025