IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: A42/2016
DATE: 2017-02-27
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
(3) REVISED.
DATE 30/9/2025
SIGNATURE 10
In the matter between
ADRIAAN ISAK GELDENHUYS Appellant
and
THE STATE Respondent
J U D G M E N T 20
MAKHOBA , J:
RANCHOD, J:
1. The appellant was charged with seven counts of
culpable homicide and he pleaded guilty to all seven
counts. He was convicted as charged to all seven
counts and the learned magistrate took all counts as
one for the purpose of sentence and he sentenced him
to six years’ imprisonment. We have been told this
morning, that he has since been released on bail 30
pending appeal and he served approximately six
months’ imprisonment. The appeal is therefore solidly
on the sentence.
2. The charge relates to a very serious motor vehicle
collision (head -on collision) between the two motor
vehicles and the appellant was one of the drivers of
the two motor vehicles. In this collision, which took
place on the 14 th of May 2005, seven people lost their
lives.
3. According to counsel for the appellant, the trial
court did not consider the following factors properly: 10
3.1 The age of the appellant at the time of the
commission of the offence and his age at the
time he was sentenced.
3.2 Appellant had no previous convictions and a first
offender at the time of his sentence.
3.3 The tragic death of all the deceased resulted
from a single motor vehicle collision.
3.4 Appellant pleaded guilty and showed remorse.
3.5 He was also injured and in a coma for eight
weeks. 20
3.6 Appellant suffered serious brain damage as a
result and cannot manage his own affairs and a
curator bonis as well as curator persona had
been appointed for him.
3.7 The roadworks at the place of the collision
created a very dangerous situation that confused
motorists using the stretch of road.
3.8 The learned magistrate and the prosecutor did
not understand the meaning of curator bonis and
curator persona , as a result of which the matter 30
did not consider the fact that the appellant was
unable to properly understand and manage his
own affairs.
4. Counsel for the appellant submitted to us that the
appear sentence, the learned magistrate should have
considered is that of house arrest in terms of section
276(1)(h) Act 51 of 1977.
5. In response thereto, the respondent counsel
implored us not to interfere with the sentence but
dismiss the appeal. According to counsel for the
State, the trial court considered the seriousness of the
crime in that the appellant’s negligence caused the 10
death of seven people. Counsel for the appellant,
again this morning, implored us to take into account
that the death of the deceased is as a result of the
appellant’s blameworthiness. The appellant’ moral
blameworthiness is high, he even pleaded guilty
before the Court a quo .
6. In response thereto, the issue before us is whether
the trial court erred in imposing a custodial sentence
rather than correctional supervision or any other non -20
custodial sentence given the physical condition of the
appellant.
7. Counsel for the appellant asked us to consider the
fact that the Court a quo did not consider section
276(1)(h) Act 51 of 1977. However, in the record
itself, it is clear that the magistrate did mention
section 276(1)(h) Act 51 of 1977 and we do then
accept that he did take that into account.
30
8. In State v Anderson 1964 (3) 494 (A), the appellant,
the appellate division held that:
“A sentence can be altered on appeal only
if the Court finds that no reasonable man
ought to have imposed such a sentence or
is grossly inappropriate or that there was
an improper exercise of his discretion by
the trial judge. ”
See also Director of Public Prosecution KZN v P 2006
(1) SACR 243 (SCA) 10.
9. In Salzwede and Others 1999 (2) SACR 580 (A)
541(9) the Court said the following:
“An appeal Court is entitled to interfere 10
with sentence imposed by a trial Court in a
case where sentence is disturbingly
inappropriate or totally out of proportion to
the granting or magnitude of the offences
sufficiently [indistinct – 13:51] or vitiated
by misdirection of nature which shows that
the trial Court did not exercise its
discretion reasonably.”
10. The learned magistrate, in justifying the sentence 20
he imposed in his judgment, he referred us to the
decision in State v Humphries 2013 (2) 1 SACR (SCA).
In this decision ten children died due to the driver ’s
negligence and the accused was sentenced to eight
years’ imprisonment. In this case argument was put
before us on behalf of the appellant about the signage
in the road but that evidence was not before Court, it
was an assertion by the legal representative of the
appellant in court. The investigating officer or
whoever commented in the docket about the nature of 30
the signage and the way road was structured. That
person never testified before us. We also take into
account the following:
That there is no evidence before us about the medical
condition of the appellant, why the appellant should be
disqualified for any custodial sentence.
In my view there are a number of similarities between
this matter before us and the case referred to by the
magistrate, namely State v Humphries supra .
11. In this matter before us, we have to take into
account that seven people lost their life as a result of
the appellant’s negligence. What makes it even more
painful for the members of the family of these seven 10
people, is that the deceased, all of them, all seven,
were interrelated to each other.
12. It is indeed so that the appellant also sustained
injuries, however, it is common cause that he is the
cause of the whole accident. The fact that the curator
bonis has been appointed for the appellant, it does
not, unfortunately, disqualify him from a custodial
sentence. Of utmost importance in this case is the
gravity of the offence. 20
13. I cannot therefor, under the circumstances, say that
the learned magistrate misdirected himself and that
the sentence is grossly inappropriate.
14. In the premise[?] the appeal stands to be
dismissed.
JUSTICE RANCHOD J : I agree and it is so ordered.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
30
MAKHOBA , J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE : ……………….
…………………………
RANCHOD , J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE : ……………….