SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: CC25/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES
DATE: 25/09/2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
STATE
V
RUDA JOAO MUGADUI ACCUSED
SENTENCE
MOSOPA J
[1] On the 20 June 2025, the accused was convicted of murder in terms of section
51(1) and Part 1 of Schedule 2 of Act 105 of 1997, after pleading guilty to the
charge levelled against her.
[2] The accused is these proceedings is still represented by Mr Botha from the
Legal Aid, South Africa. The state is represented by Mr Lalane from the
Director of Public Prosecutions, Pretoria.
[3] The trial occasioned a number of postponements at the instance of both the
state and the defence. Initially the state sought a report to confirm if the
accused herself was a victim of human trafficking, taking into consideration the
manner that she was brought into the country. Such report was never
presented to this court and the trial of the accused commenced. Before the
conviction of the accused, the defence expert witness relocated and went back
stay in Canada. That also delayed the finalisation of the matter.
[4] The accused did not testify in mitigation of sentence. The defence led the
evidence of an expert witness Professor Gerard Labuschagne, a Clinical
Psychologist. The witness testified through a link from Canada, after both the
state and the defence agreed that his evidence can be obtained in that manner.
[5] Professor Labuschagne confirmed to have compiled a report in 2024, but it was
dated 15 October 2025, which was a typing error, and was supposed to read 15
October 2024. The report was admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibit
‘C’. In the report it was stated that the accused was born on 13 November 2004
in Chibavar District, Mozambique. She lived there until she came to live in
South Africa in June 2021. Her parents are still alive residing in Mozambique.
Her father was in the military and is now a pensioner and her mother is a
housewife.
[6] They made ends meet through subsistence farming . She is the second eldest
of six children born to her parents. Her older brother passed away, even though
no year specified. Her four younger siblings all reside in Mozambique. Her
home language is Ndau which is similar to Shona language. She grew in a
household without electricity or running water. Her family house was a mud
structure with grass or thatch roofing. Her family home consisted of three huts,
one for her parents, the other one for her and the other for her siblings.
[7] She completed primary school and went immediately to high school. She failed
[7] She completed primary school and went immediately to high school. She failed
grade 10 twice, and it was during her third attempt that she came to South
Africa for marriage purposes. Her high school was an hour walk away from their
residence. She reported no disciplinary problems at school and indicated that
the reason she failed grade 10 twice was because she struggled with
Mathematics and English. She does not have any health problems and does
not consume alcohol. She does not have previous convictions.
[8] She entered illegally in the country by crossing the boarder into the country.
She was transported by a taxi to Tembisa and that is when she met the
deceased for the first time. The deceased told her that he has 5 wives and 19
children and grandchildren, and he was also a traditional healer. She describes
her marriage relationship as one characterized by conflict, which included
verbal fights, threats of harm towards her including threats to be killed and
assaults. The deceased would regularly consume alcohol, and the fights will
occur within the drinking context.
[9] Under the nature of interpersonal violence, with the following risk factors,
intimidation, threats, physical harm, sexual harm, severe intimate partner
violence, chronic intimate partner violence, and intimate partner violence
related- supervision violence, the pres ence of risk factor was found under
chronic intimate partner violence by the accused. It is further indicated under
this risk factor that, “while there is a history of intimate partner violence in the
relationship, it appears that the deceased was the instigator of this, and the
accused the victim thereof.
[10] It was also found that the accused has none of the risk factors associated with
a concern future intimate partner violence and that the likelihood for reoffending
is low considering the significant absence of risk factors.
[11] In cross -examination, Professor Labuschagne conceded that the “Buttered
Woman Syndrome is not applicable in casu. He further conceded that what the
accused did was avoidable as that was not the only option, of killing the
deceased. She could have for example run away. She was young at that stage,
and some other psychological aspects could have played a role. He maintained
and some other psychological aspects could have played a role. He maintained
that the accused is a suitable c andidate for rehabilitation. The accused closed
her case after the testimony of Professor Labuschagne in mitigation of
sentence.
[12] The state in aggravation of sentence led the evidence of M[...] S[...] S[...] who is
the child of the deceased. She did not physically meet with the accused but
used to see her photographs and was seeing the accused for the first time at
court. She s tays in Tembisa, South Africa. She read into record the Victim
Impact Statement that she prepared, wherein she said the following , that she
misses the memories she had with the deceased. When she was told that her
father was murdered, she felt that it was a lie. She was shattered inside, and
she could not bear it. The deceased did not get time to meet his grandchildren,
and they also did not get a chance of meeting him. She misses her father’s
morning telephonic calls, when he will enquire if everything was fine with her.
[13] On court’s questions she contradicted the Clinical psychological report about
the number of wi ves his father married. According to her, her father was
married to four wives, and the accused was the fourth wife, as opposed to five
wives. They never as a family received any letter from the accused apologising
in relation to her conduct which resulted in the killing of her father. After the
evidence, the state closed its case.
[14] It is trite that in sentencing an offender the point of departure is to consider the
offender, the offence and the interests of society. (S v Zinn 1969(2) SA 537 (A))
[15] I determined the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the
offence as 18 years and 2 months. This means that when she arrived in the
country she was 17 years in June 2021. I still find it peculiar when accused
failed to inform us of her correct age which necessitated the age to be
determined by court. She gave Professor Labuschagne her correct age in 2024
when the report was compiled and also the fact that she had to repeat grade
10, on two occasions. But when she appeared before Dr Lukhozi in 2025, she
only informed her of the date and month she was born. This conduct, Professor
only informed her of the date and month she was born. This conduct, Professor
Labuschagne, deem it as an act of dishonesty.
[16] The accused was very young and of a school going age when she was forced
into a marriage by her family and the family of the deceased. She was brought
into the country illegally. The accused after meeting with the deceased, realised
for the first time that her husband is not of her age but a person who qualifies to
be her grandfather. She was isolated from her family, and her freedom of
movement was restricted by the accused. She suffered a series of assault at
the hands of the deceased, and her neighbours saw injuries on her occasioned
by such assaults.
[17] The deceased was excessively using alcohol, and such assaults will occur in
the context of alcohol consumption. Her right to communicate with he outside
world, more especially with her family was curtailed by the deceased in that he
did not allow her to possess a cell phone. She initially lied as to what happened
after murdering the deceased to the deceased’s son, but did not persist with
such lie in this court as she fully took responsibility of her actions. The
deceased did not want the accused to have friends, and she could not visit her
family members. She only realised that she was pregnant with the child of the
deceased after her arrest. She has since given birth to that child, who is now
with her family in Mozambique. The accused was denied a right to raise her
own child due to her incarceration.
[18] The murder was a result of the accused answering the phone belonging to the
deceased, a conduct which the deceased did not appreciate. The accused
assaulted her several times with an iron bar. The chief post -mortem findings on
the body were, three lacerations frontal area, one is 8cm and penetrates the
frontal lobes of the brain with the two other blows 3cm wide. The pathologist
was of the view that, axe was possibly used as an attack weapon. The skull is
fractured, frontal bone left and right and linear fracture of the right perennial
bone. The brain is lacerated with diffuse subarachnoid bleeding present. The
cause of death was found to be head injury by sharp trauma-unnatural.
[19] The injures sustained by the deceased as can be gleaned from scene photo
[19] The injures sustained by the deceased as can be gleaned from scene photo
album, which was admitted into evidence and post -mortem findings, is an
indication that the deceased died a brutal and painful death. The section 112
statement does not indicate the time of his death, whether the deceased was
under the influence of alcohol or not. What we know is that he has just used the
bathroom before he was murdered.
[20] According to the photographer who took scene photographs, he received a
request to attend a scene of murder at 2am and arrived there at 02:35am.
Taking into account these timelines, it is possible that this murder occurred in
the early hours of the morning under the thickness of darkness, when majority
of people were sleeping. According to the accused he fell on the bed, and she
covered her with blankets. However, scene photo album tells a different story,
and shows a person sleeping inside the blankets. There is not much emphasis
which can be placed on this aspect by this court as the state accepted the
circumstances of the murder as outlined by the accused in the section 112
statement.
[21] The death of the deceased had a negative impact on the life of his family. He
was married to various wives, but the court did not have the benefit of hearing
how it impacted on the lives of the wives and other children of the deceased.
What also shocked this court is the fact that the daughter of the deceased did
not visit her father after getting married to the accused and was seeing the
accused for the first time here at court. This is surprising taking into account
that her mother was in a polygamous marriage with the deceased and she is
not the first wife.
[22] This murder is the kind that can be classified under Gender Based Violence
crimes. The Government annually highlights the dangers of Gender Based
Violence crimes, but majority of the people choose not adhere to this calling.
According to Professor Labuschagne this is one of the murders that could have
been avoided by the accused, by for example running away from the deceased.
Based on the findings by Professor Labuschagne, the contention by Mr Botha
that the accused as a young person, not speaking any of th e languages in
South Africa and her movement restricted, is with no merit. There were many
South Africa and her movement restricted, is with no merit. There were many
times when the accused could be with the neighbours, and this will be in the
absence of the accused as she was not allowed to leave the house. This could
have been a perfect time for her to flee the abuse she was suffering at the
hands of the accused. Her uncle according to Professor Labuschagne report,
was domiciled in the country.
[23] Gender Based Violence crimes is a serious thorn in the flesh of the
government. Legislature has now amended Act 105 of 1997, to prescribe
imprisonment for life if murder is in the context of domestic relationship. Actions
of the deceased when assaulting the accused cannot be condoned as that,
also amounted to Gender Based Violence crimes. It is not clear as to why the
accused neighbours did not report such abuse to the police, as the law makes it
mandatory to report such if someone had witnessed such abuse taking place.
Marriages within the customary context involves the families. The abuse
suffered by the accused persisted for a very lengthy period of time, but there
was no intervention from both the family of the deceased and that of the
accused.
[24] When sentencing an offender, the court need also to cater for the interests of
society. The society expects serious crimes to be punished severely, and this in
my view is a reasonable expectation taking into account a high rate of
commission of violent crimes in this country. In S v Mhlakaza [1997] 2 ALL SA
185 (A);
“The object of sentencing is not to satisfy public opinion but to serve
the public interest. A sentencing policy that caters predominantly or
exclusively for public opinion is inherently flawed. It remains the court's
duty to impose fearlessly an appropriate and fair sentence, even if the
sentence does not satisfy the public. In this context the approach
expressed in S v Makwanyane & Another 1995 (2) SACR 1 (CC) par
87-89 (per Chaskalson P) applies mutatis mutandis: public opinion may
have some relevance to the enquiry, but, in itself, it is no substitute for
the duty vested in the court; the court cannot allow itself to be diverted
from its duty to act as an independent arbiter by making choices on the
basis that they will find favour with the public.”
Further that;
“Given the current levels of violence and serious crimes in this country,
it seems proper that, in sentencing especially such crimes, the
emphasis should be on retribution and deterrence.”
[25] In S v Karg 1961 (1) SA 231 (A) it was said that, if sentences for serious
crimes are too lenient, the administration of justice may fall into disrepute and
injured persons may inclined to take the law into their own hands.
[26] The court in S v SMM 2013 (2) SACR 292 (SCA) at para 13, when dealing with
sentence stated,
“I hasten to add that it is trite that each case must be decided on its
own merits. It is also self -evident that sentence must always be
individualised, for punishment must always fit the crime, the criminal
and the circumstances of the case. It is equally important to remind
ourselves that sentencing should always be considered and passed
dispassionately, objectively and upon a careful consideration of all
relevant factors. Public sentiment cannot be ignored, but it can never
be permitted to displace the careful judgment and fine balancing that
are involved in arriving at an appropriate sentence. Courts must
therefore always strive to arrive at a sentence which is just and fair to
both the victim and the perpetrator, has regard to the nature of the
crime and takes account of the interests of society. Sentencing
involves a very high degree of responsibility which should be carried
out with equanimity. As Corbett JA put it in S v Rabie:
'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 balance 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, where firmness is called for, he should
approach his task with a humane and
compassionate understanding of human frailties and the
approach his task with a humane and
compassionate understanding of human frailties and the
pressures of society which contribute to criminality.'
[27] At verdict stage, I made a pronouncement that the murder in this matter falls
squarely within the purview of section 51(1) in that the deceased was in a
domestic relationship with the accused when he was murdered. Murder in casu,
was committed in January 2022. The Act was amended on the 05 August 2022
to include persons killed in a domestic relationship. The amendment does not
pronounce itself to be retrospective, meaning that the amendment is with effect
from 05 August 2022.
[28] In Veldman v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local
Division 2007 (3) SA 210 (CC) para 26, Mokgoro J stated;
“[26] Generally, legislation is not to be interpreted to extinguish
existing rights and obligations. This is so unless the statute provides
otherwise or its language clearly shows such a meaning. That
legislation will affect only future matters and not take away existing
rights is basic to notions of fairness and justice which are integral to the
rule of law, a foundational principle of our Constitution. Also central to
the rule of law is the principle of legality which requires that law must
be certain, clear and stable. Legislative enactments are intended to
“give fair warning of their effect and permit individuals to rely on their
meaning until explicitly changed.”
[29] Section 35(3)(n) of Constitution makes the following provision;
“35(3) Every accused person has a right to a fair trial which includes
the right-
(n) to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments if
the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between
the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing”
[30] At the time of commission of this murder, there was no prescribed sentence for
killing a person who you are with, in a domestic relationship. But the offender
could still be sentenced to life imprisonment if the murder is premeditated or
planned, committed by a group of people in furtherance of common purpose.
planned, committed by a group of people in furtherance of common purpose.
The constitutional implication to the finding I made, is basically that the accused
cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment as at the time of murder there was no
prescribed sentence for such.
[31] In argument, I was called upon by Mr Botha to consider the circumstances
under which the accused was brought into the country, arranged marriage, age
of the accused, abuse at the hands of the deceased, as admitted by the state in
the accused’s guilty plea. The state is of the view that the accused ought to be
sentenced to the ultimate penalty, life imprisonment.
[32] It is trite that age of the accused at sentencing stage plays a critical role, as a
teenager is prima facie to be regarded as immature and that the youthfulness of
an offender will invariably be a mitigating factor, unless it appears that the
viciousness of his or her deeds rule out immaturity. (See S v Matyityi 2011(1)
SACR 40 (SCA)).
[33] It cannot be ignored that the accused was robbed the enjoyment of her youth
by her family and that of the deceased. After being married to the deceased,
she stopped with her schooling and became a housewife. Things that are
normally done by people of her age, she could no longer do them. Deceased
forced her to have a child which she did not want. The distance between her
new home and family speaks volumes and she could neither communicate with
them. The deceased subjected her to, what one can refer to as “life of a slave”.
However, her actions in killing the deceased are not justified.
[34] Accused made it a point when killing the deceased that he does not wake up
alive, looking at the injuries sustained by the deceased. Despite there being a
struggle between the accused and the deceased before his death, the accused
did not sustain any injuries. The timing of the death, the fact that it happened at
night, leaves much to be desired. Accused was at one stage wrestling on the
floor with he deceased until she managed to reach out to the weapon she used
to kill the deceased with, and in my view, such was a perfect time for her to run
to kill the deceased with, and in my view, such was a perfect time for her to run
away. But accused instead repeatedly assaulted the deceased with the iron bar
on his head.
[35] What also puzzled me, given the circumstances of this murder, is to why did the
accused not plead a defence of self -defence. This can be construed to be that
accused knew that there was no justification for her actions. However, all these
circumstances in my considered view, excludes the imposition of life
imprisonment.
[36] This does not mean that the accused can escape imprisonment. I am also
considering the fact that accused has been in custody since her arrest in
January 2022, which is now 3 years and 8 months awaiting finalisation of her
trial matter. I cannot apportion delay in finalisation of the trial matter to any
party, but delay was occasioned by systemic issues.
[37] The accused must take this opportunity and empower herself and finish her
matric and most probably proceed to tertiary level. Accused must also find in
herself to apologise to the family of the deceased, for murdering the deceased.
It is unfortunate that she was also a victim, but she could not lay criminal
charges against the deceased for her to get justice. Her status in the country
could have been one of the elements that prohibited her from doing that or her
age. But all this is speculation as accused refused to testify.
[38] Having regard to all these factors, I will proceed to sentence the accused as
follows;
1. Murder: accused is sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
M.J. MOSOPA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT, PRETORIA
APPEARANCES:
For the State : Advocate S. Lalane
Instructed by : Director of Public Prosecutions
For the accused : Mr M. Botha
Instructed by : Legal Aid South Africa