SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GQEBERHA)
CASE NO.: CC12/2025
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
DEVANO VAN VUUREN Accused
JUDGMENT
GQAMANA J
[1] On the 15 March 2024, Mr Dominic Sebastian Ruiters (the deceased) was shot and killed at
his mother’s home at 1 [...] D[...] Road, Shauderville, Gqeberha. The post -mortem report found
that the cause of the deceased’s death was chest and abdominal injuries due to multiple gunshots.
The State now seeks to impute blame on the accused for such death. As such the accused is
arraigned for murder, unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition, housebreaking with
intent to murder and two counts under the provisions of section 9 (1) (a) and 2(a) of the
Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998.
[2] The accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges and tendered no plea explanation. However,
as the trial progressed, the accused made certain admissions in terms of s 220 of the Criminal
Procedure Act. I will deal with those admissions as and when it becomes necessary, suffice for
the moment that the name of the deceased and the post-mortem findings were admitted.
[3] It is trite that in criminal cases the onus is upon the State to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt against an accused person and there is no onus upon the accused to prove his innocence.
[4] It is so that in criminal cases the court does not look at the evidence implicating the accused
in isolation, in order to determine whether there is proof beyond reasonable doubt, nor does it
look at the exculpatory evidence in isolation to determine whether it is reasonable possible that it
might be true 1. All the evidence adduced at trial must be considered in totality taking proper
account of inherent strength and weaknesses, probabilities and improbabilities on both sides, in
order to decide whether the balance weighs so heavily in favour of the State, so as to exclude any
reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt2. To discharge such onus, a number of witnesses were
called by the State. For proper appreciation of the events, their evidence would be summarised
sequentially and not in the manner they were called.
State’s evidence
[5] The version of the State is that Sgt Diamond attended to the crime scene and took
[5] The version of the State is that Sgt Diamond attended to the crime scene and took
photographs t hereof as indicated in exhibit “A”. Some of the photographs show the deceased
lying on the couch on his back with visible injuries and blood from his mouth and around the
neck area. There are also photographs showing some injuries to his body as he was lyi ng on the
1 See S v Sithole [2012] ZASCA 85 (SCA) at para 85.
2 S v Chabalala 2003 (1) SACR 134 (SCA) para 15.
floor next to the couch. There were also cartridges cases and bullets found and collected at the
scene which were then sealed and sent for ballistic testing. Importantly Sgt Diamond also
collected prima rescue on the deceased and later at Gelvand ale charge office on the accused. The
prima rescue was placed on a sealed bag and sent for ballistics tests. It was his evidence that the
accused was not cooperative as it appeared to Sgt Diamond that he was either drunk or under the
influence of something. The blood that is depicted in some of the photographs on the floor of the
crime scene was not collected and sent for ballistic testing and as such nothing came out of that
information.
[6] Again a day before the commencement of the trial Sgt Diamond was instructed by the new
investigating officer to attend to the crime scene and to take some photographs and such
photographs were handed in as exhibit “B”. Not much turns out of that save for certain
photographs which show a couch and a wall unit with a bul let hole which were also evident in
exhibit “A”.
[7] However the most crucial evidence in this matter was Ms Sheila Ruiters, the deceased
mother. I will refer to her as ‘Sheila’ and I mean no disrespect towards her, but it is for the flow
of the evidence , and all the other witnesses called her by that name. On the day of the incident
Sheila received a call from her son, (the deceased) that he would be visiting her. Approximately
midday the deceased arrived at her house at 1 [...] D[...] Road accompanied by two unknown
young boys. She exchanged greetings with the two young boys and thereafter the latter went
outside for smoke and never returned. The deceased and her remained inside the house and
conversed. As they were in deep conversation, she overhead the a ccused shouting and swearing
outside. Because of the vulgar language used by the accused the actual words he uttered would
not be repeated, suffice for the moment to say that the accused said ‘the China boys’ are not
not be repeated, suffice for the moment to say that the accused said ‘the China boys’ are not
welcomed in his street, and “ the deceas ed was going to die today ”. Sheila went outside to
confront the accused, leaving her son seated on the couch. She stood next to a letter box in front
of her yard, and the accused was in the middle of the street opposite her house, swearing
unrepentantly. The accused then moved towards Trevor’s house still swearing. She approached
and asked him what his problem was. The accused repeatedly swore at her and again said the
deceased “is going to die today ”. One of the accused’s friends, Zaynie tried to reason wi th the
accused while holding him fuss. The accused was not wearing any clothes on his top but had
black pants and tekkies. He was also carrying a black firearm in his right hand. The accused
managed to release himself from Zaynie, his friend and ran pass S heila and straight to her house.
The door and the burglar gate were open. Immediately the accused got inside her house, she
heard gunshots. She ran back to her house and the accused came out running and passed her
while she was still outside. The accused was still carrying a black firearm in his right hand.
[8] When she got inside her house and she observed the deceased in a slanting position on the
couch with blood. Not realising at that moment that the deceased was no more, she called, kissed
and begged him to speak to her, but the deceased did not respond. Also, there was blood on the
curtain behind the couch where the deceased was lying.
[9] She went outside to call her neighbour Ms Phyllis Arries ( Phyllis). She asked Phyllis to
come over and to look at the deceased because he was non -responsive. Phyllis came and looked
at the deceased and said it looked like he was no longer alive. They assisted each other to lay
properly the deceased’s body on the couch. Soon thereafter her friend Ms Gizzelle Murphy (alias
Noonie) who was standing on the street came inside upon her invitation and she asked her to call
the police and the paramedics. Noonie informed her that she was not getting through to the
police and the paramedics.
[10] As they were all standing i nside her house, the accused came back again running and she
instructed Nonnie to close the door and the burglar gate. Nonnie managed to close only the door.
The accused kicked the door open; he came inside to the lounge and fired several shots
repeatedly at the deceased’s body. After that he ran out. As the accused was outside, he swore
again and said that he had shot the deceased dead. The accused went and stood opposite
Trevor’s house with his friends rejoicing. She approached him and said to him ‘ you ripped my
Trevor’s house with his friends rejoicing. She approached him and said to him ‘ you ripped my
heart but you did not break my spirit’ and the accused responded that he was not scared of the
police and going to jail.
[11] Later on the same day, she saw a police van parked on the street, and she approached it and
reported to the police the sh ooting incident at her house. The police came to her house, and she
showed them the deceased body. The crime scene was cordoned off. As she was standing
outside, she saw the accused marshaling in the street and she pointed him to the police, who then
approached and arrested the accused. The accused was still clad in the same manner as before.
[12] She refuted the proposition put to her in cross -examination that the deceased had a firearm
with him.
[13] Sheila’s evidence was corroborated by Ms Phyllis A rries (Phyllis). Phyllis testified that she
was at her house watching television with the front door open. She did not hear the first shots nor
the shouting and swearing by the accused, attributing that to the loud volume on her TV. She was
called by Sheila and she crossed over the fence to Sheila’s house where she saw the deceased’s
body on the couch. Sheila and her assisted each other to lay properly the deceased’s body on the
couch as it was slanting. She confirmed that Ms Murphy came in and while the th ree of them
were inside the house, the accused came back. She ran to the kitchen to hide herself. The accused
kicked the door open and fired shots at the deceased’s body. She remained hiding in the kitchen
and surfaced when it was quiet.
[14] The next witn ess was Ms Murphy also corroborated Sheila’s evidence. From the outset, I
accept that there were some contradictions between their testimonies on the sequence of events
and on some other details related to the events herein and I deal with those contradict ions later in
this judgment.
[15] Ms Murphy’s evidence was that she was at Denise’ house diagonally opposite Sheila’s
house. She was seated on the doorway and she heard a commotion. She went outside but
remained within Denise’ yard, she saw the accused and Sheila shouting at each other. The
accused walked pass her carrying a gun in his hand and he was naked on his top. Sheila followed
him in the direction of Trevor’s house and requested her to call the police. She phoned the
police, but she was unsuccessful . While Sheila and the accused were close to gate at Trevor’s
police, but she was unsuccessful . While Sheila and the accused were close to gate at Trevor’s
house, she saw Zaynie holding the accused fuss, but the accused managed to free himself. The
accused went over to Sheila’ house and the deceased was standing on the front doorway. The
accused and the deceased exchanged words, but she could not hear all the words. However, she
heard the accused saying to the deceased, ‘you don’t belong here’. The deceased moved more to
the inside on the right-hand side of the house towards the couch, while the ac cused was standing
in the doorway. Suddenly she heard three -gun shots. Sheila came back to her house and she
followed her. The accused walked pass Sheila and went towards Trevor’ house still carrying a
firearm. Inside Sheila’s house she saw the deceased on the couch, she felt his pulse and realised
that he was dead.
[16] As the three of them were inside Sheila’s house, she saw the accused coming back and he
was still naked on his top. She swore at him and she closed the door. The accused kicked the
door open, walked pass her and fired shots in success at the deceased. When the accused was
firing shots at the deceased’s body, she was standing in the lounge and later she went to the
bedroom. After the shooting was over, she went back to the lounge. She also me ntioned that the
accused is a ‘ Trevor boy’ , they are gangsters. The accused went pass Trevor’s house, down
D[...] road to his house after the shooting. Approximately five minutes later she went to her
house, and she saw the accused alone in the street.
[17] After some time she came out of her house and went to Sheila’s house. There were lots of
people in the street. The police already were at Sheila’s house. The accused was walking up and
down the street. One of the police walked to the accused and he was very violent and appeared to
be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. He was then arrested by the police.
[18] Not much was disputed on the evidence of the police. In short: Constables Sogoni and
Bester attended the crime scene at Sheila’s house. Th e accused was pointed out to Const. Bester
by Sheila, and he approached him. The accused was very rebellious and unco -operative. He
explained to him his Constitutional rights and reasons for his arrest. Thereafter he arrested him
and took him to Gelvandale police station.
[19] Const. Sogoni was not involved in the arrest of the accused, instead he attended to cordon
off the crime scene to preserve the evidence. He saw and found one bullet outside the house. The
crime scene was handed over to W/O Diamond fr om Local Crime Record Centre (LCRC) upon
his arrival. The crime scene was processed and photographs, exhibit “A” were taken by W/O
Diamond. Cartridge cases and bullets found at the crime scene were collected and placed in
sealed and duly marked exhibit ba gs. Primer residue test on the deceased was also conducted by
W/O Diamond. Later that day, he also conducted primer residue on the accused at Gelvandale
police station.
[20] A post -mortem report of Dr Mgobo was admitted and marked exhibit “D”. In addition , Dr
Mgodo testified that a bullet was found lodged on the deceased body and same was handed over
to the relevant official. The chain of evidence in relation to that exhibit was admitted. That
exhibit was also handed over to ballistic section. Dr Mgobo testified that based on the position of
the injuries on the deceased, his opinion was that the shooter was standing on the left side
because most entrance bullet wounds were on the left side of the deceased’s body and the
deceased was not standing still. Furt her and most importantly his findings were that the cause of
death was chest and abdominal injuries due to multiple gunshots.
[21] The exhibits mentioned in paragraphs 18 and 19 above were handed over to the ballistic
section for ballistic testing. W/O Baduza’s report was admitted and was marked exhibit E. She
however testified that she conducted ballistic analysis and examination on the cartridge cases and
bullets exhibits that were handed over to her. The importance of her evidence is that, all the
cartridge cases that were found at the crime scene and the bullet which was found lodged on the
deceased’s body during postmortem, were fired from the same firearm. In addition, that firearm
was a semi-automatic firearm.
[22] Captain Walsh also testified th at he conducted a reconstruction of the crime scene at the
request of the investigating officer and complied with his report marked exhibit C. The purpose
of his analysis was to reconstruct the position of the persons of interest and the position of the
shooter. His conclusion was that –
“The shooter most likely entered the front door of the house, turning right to face the victim who
was seated on the couch. The victim twisted torso to the left, facing the shooter in the doorway
bringing the mouth and nose in proximity with the curtain. Shots were fired and wounds sustained
as seen by the distribution of the cartridge cases depicted in the album of Constable Diamond [Exh
A]. The victim possibly lifted his arms into a defensive position. This is cons istent with the
description of the wounds as described in paragraphs 4.5, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.8 of Postmortem report on
Gelvandale DR 113/2024 [Exh D]. Blood gushed from the nose and mouth area onto the curtain.
The victim fell backwards onto the couch with the head of the deceased being static for a period of
time on the edge of the couch, bleeding onto the floor near the television. This is consistent with
the bloodstain pattern as described in paragraph 9.2 of this statement. From this position the body
was moved to the position as depicted in the photo album of Constable Diamond [Exh A], but with
the head of the deceased being in contact with the right collar bone area. The body was finally
moved to the current position. With the distance in between the shoot er and the victim being
approximately the length of the couch or less, it is likely that gunshot residue expelled from the
barrel onto the hands of the deceased.”
[22] The next witness was the investigating officer W/O Ferreira. He confirmed that he was not
the initial investigator and he took over the investigation a month before this trial commenced.
He has 23 years of experience in the SAPS, and he is attached to the Anti -Gang Unit in
Gqeberha. He testified that ‘ the Trevor boys’ were profiled, and it was found that they are not a
gang but a drug post run by Trevor using a number of people to sell his drugs for him. He
testified also that the deceased was not a gang member but was involved in stealing cars. The
State thereafter closed its case. I ha ve mentioned above there were admissions made by the
accused in terms of s 220 as contained in exhibits “H” and “H1” together with annexure “J”
attached thereto. I turn now to consider the accused’s case.
Accused’s case
[23] The accused testified in his defence. He denied any involvement in the shooting and killing
of the deceased nor any altercation with Sheila or possession of a firearm. His evidence, aside
from his personal circumstances for the moment, was that: on the day in question in the
afternoon he was at home in his back room drinking a bottle of beer. He was wearing a black t -
shirt with RJ inscription written in blue, black and white pants and tekkies. His friend Zaynie
came to him, and they took a walk around their area. They walked up the D[...] street pass
came to him, and they took a walk around their area. They walked up the D[...] street pass
‘Volkskree’ butchery to Giddan road and down Gelvan street. As they were walking down
Gelvan street, he saw three people coming up the same street. One of those people was the
deceased. He stood at the corner of Gelvan street and D[...] road next to Sheila’s house. There
was exchange of words between him and the deceased. He moved closer to the deceased, and the
latter took out from his waist a firearm and wanted to shoot him, but the gun jammed. The
accused then ran home and remaine d there drinking wine for the better part of that afternoon.
While at home he took off his t-shirt.
[24] Later-on that afternoon he went back to the street after he heard some noises. On his way
out he met his mother who then asked him what was happening. He remained mute and
proceeded with his journey. There were two police vans in the street. Two coloured policemen
approached him and he was handcuffed and arrested for behaving in a disorderly manner. He
was taken to Gelvandale police station.
[25] He further mentioned that when he was still a youngster the deceased enjoyed bullying
him, he would often rob him of his money. He denied that he was a member of a gang.
[26] In cross examination, counsel for the State encountered no challenges in exposing and
unearthing contradictions and improbabilities to the accused’s evidence and I deal with those
later in this judgment.
Discussion
[27] As indicated above there is no onus on the accused to prove his innocence. 3 The accused
does not have to convince a Court of the truth of his explanation. For the court to convict an
accused person, it must be satisfied, not only that the accused’s explanation is improbable, but
that it is beyond a reasonable doubt false. 4 If there exists a reasonable possibility tha t the
accused’s evidence may be true, he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.5
[28] I must turn now to consider whether the State has succeeded in proving beyond a reasonable
doubt its case against the accused.
[29] There were three eyewitnesses. The deceased’s mother, Ms Ruiters, despite the shock she
3 S v Van der Meyden 1999 (2) SA 79 (W).
4 Rex v Difford 1937 AD 370 at p 373.
5 S v Kubeka 1982 (1) SA 534 (W) at 537 F-G: “Whether I subjectively disbelieve him is, however, not the test need
not even reject the State case in order to acquit him. It is not enough that he contradicts other acceptable evidence. I
am bound to acquit him if there exist a reasonable possibility that his evidence may be true. Such is the nature of the
onus on the State.”
might have encountered on that day; in my view she eloquently explained how the events
unfolded. I have dealt in detail above with the summary of her evidence. Her evidence was clear
and chronological. She did not exaggerate her version. She impressed me as a good witness, and
her evidence was credible and reliable. The contradictions between her evidence and that of Ms
Murphy were not material. Further despite vigorous cross examination she did not d eviate from
her evidence. She remained calm throughout. I disagree with Ms Coetzen’s submission that she
was a single witness in relation to the first shooting. Her evidence was corroborated by Ms
Murphy who also witnessed the first shooting. In fact, Ms M urphy was closer to Ms Ruiter’s
house when the first shooting happened. She observed the shooting, and there was no
obstruction.
[30] Same with Ms Arries, she testified chronologically. She did not see the first shooting and
commotion between the accused and Sheila. She came in after the shooting and saw the deceased
lying on the couch dead. Further she saw the accused when he was coming for the second time, it
was then that she ran for cover. She heard when the accused kicked the door open. Again, she
did not see him firing the shots but shortly after the accused entered Sheila’s house shots were
fired. Her evidence was clear and reliable in all material aspects. She was a good witness.
[31] Also Ms Murphy impressed me as a good witness despite minor con tradictions between her
evidence and that of Ms Ruiters. Ms Murphy was an unsophisticated witness, but she gave clear
evidence on material aspects. She witnessed the commotion between Ms Ruiters and the accused
as well as the first shooting. Clearly, she made a mistake that she was instructed to call the police
even before the shooting. She also witnessed the second shooting. In overall she also impressed
me as a good witness.
[32] The accused was well known by all three eyewitnesses. It is common cause th at there was
[32] The accused was well known by all three eyewitnesses. It is common cause th at there was
no animosity between him and them. There is just no plausible reason for these witnesses to
falsely implicate him.
[33] The accused admitted having an exchange of words between him and the deceased but not
with the witness Ms Ruiters. But he denied that he committed any of the offences herein. He was
a poor witness. He adapted his version during cross examination. Some of his evidence against
the deceased surfaced for the first time under cross examination. For example, initially his
version was that the deceased bullied him and would rob him of his money when he was young.
But in cross examination that version changed. Further he gave a ridiculous explanation of his
activities that day.
[34] The accused also mentioned that Ms Ruiters gave f alse evidence against him because she
wanted to place him in bad light. That was one of many of his fabrications.
[35] All the three eyewitnesses corroborated each other that it was the accused who shot and
killed the deceased. Sheila and Ms Murphy also te stified about a commotion between Sheila and
the accused before the shooting. Their evidence was clear in that regard.
[36] The fact that the primer residue test was negative was well explained by Captain Walsh. The
shooting occurred in the early hours of the afternoon but the residue primer test on him was done
very late that afternoon. Further, it was a very hot day and sweating may have also played a role.
There might have been other environmental factors that also contributed.
[37] On the overa ll consideration of the evidence, I’m satisfied that the State has discharged the
onus and has proved the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in respect of counts 1 to 3.
The accused, despite his friend, Zaynie’s attempt to reason with him, but he wa s resolute to
fulfill his desire i.e. to kill the deceased. Even after shooting the deceased on the first occasion,
he came back and fired more shorts at the deceased’s body, although the deceased was dead
already. It is clear from the evidence of Sheila t hat the murder of the deceased was pre -
meditated. The accused’s version is not reasonably possibly true, and it is rejected as false.
[38] However, in respect of count 4, Counsel for the State conceded that based on the evidence
[38] However, in respect of count 4, Counsel for the State conceded that based on the evidence
of the three eyewitnesses’ the deceased died after the first shooting. Therefore, there was no
evidence that the housebreaking was committed with the intention to murder. In respect of
counts 5 and 6, there was also no reliable evidence that the accused was a member of a gang. The
investigating officer testified that the “Trevor boys” are not a gangster group but it’s a drug post.
[39] In the circumstances the accused is found guilty on counts 1, 2 and 3 i.e., Murder,
Unlawful possession of firearm and ammunition. However, he is found not guilty on counts 4,
5, and 6 and accordingly he is acquitted and discharged on those counts.
N GQAMANA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the State : Adv Canary
Instructed by : Director of Public Prosecutions
Gqeberha
Counsel for Defence : Adv J Coertzen
Instructed by : Legal Aid
Gqeberha
Heard on : 26, 27, 28, 29 August 2025; 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5
September 2025
Judgment delivered on : 9 September 2025