IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, MAKHANDA)
NOT REPORTABLE
Case no: CC11/2025
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
ZONDANI GWEZA BOBO Accused
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE
___________________________________________________________________
Govindjee J
[1] Mr Bobo has been convicted of the rape and murder of a two -year-old child.
Both offences fall within the ambit of Part I of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1997, 1 which prescribes life imprisonment unless substantial and
compelling circumstances exist to justify a lesser sentence.
1 Act 105 of 1997. The victim was under the age of 18 years and her death was caused by the
accused after he committed the rape.
[2] Section 276 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 19772 (the Act) provides for the
sentences which courts can impose. The imposition of se ntence is pre -eminently a
matter for the discretion of the trial court, which is free to impose whatever sentence
it deems appropriate provided it exercises its discretion judicially and properly. The
general purpose of imposing a sentence is fourfold: ret ributive, preventative,
rehabilitative (reformative) and to act as a general deterrent.3
[3] The object of sentencing is not to satisfy public opinion, but to serve the public
interest.4 A sentencing court must attempt to achieve a balance in its sentence, and
not approach its task in a spirit of anger. While the retributive aspect tends to
dominate, courts are enjoined to temper the punishment with a measure of mercy. 5
Hastiness, the striving after severity and misplaced pity are inappropriate, as are so -
called exemplary sentences. 6 More serious cases clearly require severity, with a
certain moderation of generosity where possible, for the appropriate balance to be
struck.
[4] The well -known triad of factors to be considered consists of the crime, the
offender and the interests of society, 7 and these factors must be applied, in
accordance with S v Malgas ,8 to consider whether substantial and compelling
circumstances exist to deviate from the prescribed minimum sentences.9
[5] Both counsel rightly acknowledge that the crimes are of the most serious kind.
The facts underlying the convictions reveal acts of almost indescribable brutality. The
deceased was a defenceless toddler, assaulted, raped per anum, and murdered by
Mr Bobo, w ho took her away from a tavern while her mother was intoxicated. The
medical evidence and photographs of the crime scene accepted into evidence reflect
2 Act 51 of 1977.
3 S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (A).
4 S v Mhlakhaza and Another [1997] 2 All SA 185 (A) at 189. Also see S v M (Centre for Child Law as
amicus curiae) 2007 (2) SACR 539 (CC).
amicus curiae) 2007 (2) SACR 539 (CC).
5 S v Rabie above n 3 at 862G-H.
6 See S v Khulu 1975 (2) SA 518 (N) 521-522.
7 S v Zinn [1969] 3 All SA 57 (A) at 540G-H.
8 S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA); 2001 (2) SA 1222; [2001] 3 All SA 220; [2001] ZASCA 30
(Malgas).
9 See Radebe v The State [2019] ZAGPPHC 406; [2019] 3 All SA 938 (GP); 2019 (2) SACR 381 (GP)
para 12.
the violence perpetrated, the use of a knife, sharp force trauma to her neck and blunt
force to her head. These are injuries consistent with deliberate, forceful acts inflicted
on a small, vulnerable body.
[6] Mr Bobo is 51 years of age. He has no previous convictions. He is married but
separated from his wife and resides alone in Bedford. His level of educati on extends
to Standard 7, and he is not permanently employed, surviving on occasional work.
There are no pending matters against him. Mr Bobo has been in custody for
approximately one year and four months since his arrest. It was not in dispute that
he had consumed some alcohol on the night in question. Mr Charles, his counsel,
emphasised that the fact that he is a first offender suggests hope for rehabilitation,
particularly considering the role of alcohol, to be considered cumulatively with the
other factors presented, notably his level of education, the time spent in custody and
various admissions which shortened the duration of the trial.
[7] Incidents of rape and murder of a child always evoke outrage and revulsion
from the citizenry. 10 Courts have repeat edly reflected on the horrific nature of the
offence of rape itself, given that it constitutes a humiliating, degrading and brutal
invasion of the privacy, dignity, and person of the victim. 11 In S v Vilakazi ,12 the
Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that r ape is a repulsive crime. The
Constitutional Court has also explained the link between rape, sexual entitlement,
male power and control over women as part of the social construction of masculinity
in South Africa. 13 Society expects that the scourge of gend er-based violence must
be addressed and must cease. In addition, children’s rights are constitutionally
protected, and rape of a child is by its nature one of the worst kinds of offences
imaginable.
10 Director of Public Prosecutions Eastern Cape v Coko 2024 (2) SACR 113 (SCA) para 6.
10 Director of Public Prosecutions Eastern Cape v Coko 2024 (2) SACR 113 (SCA) para 6.
11 See, for example, Director of Public Prosecutions, KwaZulu -Natal v Ndlovu 2024 (1) SACR 561
(SCA) para 73.
12 S v Vilakazi 2012 (6) SA 353 (SCA); [2008] 4 All SA 396; [2008] ZASCA 87 2009 (1) SACR 552
(SCA) (Vilakazi) at 555h.
13 S v Tshabalala and Another 2020 (2) SACR 38 (CC) para 1; Masiya v Director of Public
Prosecution, Pretoria and Another (Centre for Applied Legal Studies and Another; Amici Curiae) 2007
(2) SACR 435 (CC); 2007 (8 BCLR 827; [2007] ZACC 9.
[8] Similarly, society demands that the most severe sentenc es be meted out in
cases where a child’s life is extinguished through the conduct of another. The crime
constitutes an irreversible violation of the constitutional right to life and, in the
present circumstances, has been perpetrated upon a defenceless tod dler. It has
been held in this Division that the impact of murder on the family of a deceased
person can never be adequately described or measured.14
[9] Society’s reproach has translated into legislation which by way of a
prescribed, albeit discretionary min imum sentence regime, has drastically impacted
upon the exercise of a court’s discretion in imposing a sentence. 15 As the SCA has
clarified, it is no longer business as usual. A court does not have a clean state to
determine whatever sentence it deems fit. It must sentence fully conscious of the fact
that the legislature has specified life imprisonment as the sentence which should
ordinarily be imposed for such crimes.16
[10] A sentence of life imprisonment is the ultimate punishment and requires
extremely careful consideration prior to imposition. The court has received sufficient
information to undertake this difficult enquiry. 17 Mr Charles argued that Mr Bobo’s
personal circumstances, considered cumulatively, justified a departure from the
prescribed minimum sentences. Indeed, none of the considerations taken in isolation
may be classified as ‘substantial and compelling’ in my view. 18 The question remains
whether the imposition of the minimum sentences are proportionate to the particular
offences.19 Courts are not vehicles for injustice and disproportionate sentences are
not to be imposed. 20 In order to justify the deprivation of Mr Bobo’s freedom to the
maximum extent, it must be shown that it is reasonably necessary to curb the
14 S v Ximiya [2015] ZAECBHC 9 para 2.
15 S v September [2014] ZAECGHC 38 para 8.
16 Malgas above n 8 paras 7–9.
15 S v September [2014] ZAECGHC 38 para 8.
16 Malgas above n 8 paras 7–9.
17 See s 274 of the CPA. I have specifically considered whether a probation officer’s report might aid
the enquiry and determined that this is unnecessary in the circumstances. Also see S v EN 2014 (1)
SACR 198 (SCA); [2012] ZASCA 148.
18 See S v MM 2023 (1) SACR 415 (MM) para 14.
19 S v Vilakazi above n 12 para 15; S v Dodo 2001 (1) SACR 594 (CC); 2001 (3) SA 382; 2001 (5)
BCLR 423; [2001] ZACC 16 (Dodo) paras 37–38.
20 Vilakazi above n 12 para 18.
offence and punish the offend er, so that the length of punishment is proportionate to
the offence.21
[11] It is therefore important to consider the various circumstances, described
above, cumulatively. Mr Bobo’s treatment as a first offender, time spent in custody
and alcohol consumption , in the context of possible rehabilitation prospects, merits
special consideration.
[12] There is no rule of thumb in respect of the calculation of the weight to be
given to the period spent by an accused awaiting trial. The SCA has held that a
mechanical formula to determine the extent to which the proposed sentence should
be reduced, by reason of the period of detention prior to conviction, is unhelpful.
Instead, the circumstances of an individual accused must be assessed in each case
in determining the extent to which the sentence proposed should be reduced. The
better approach is to consider the period in detention pre -sentencing as but one of
the factors that should be considered in deciding, in all the circumstances, whether
the effective pe riod of imprisonment to be imposed is justified and proportionate to
the crime committed.22
[13] While it is accepted that Mr Bobo had consumed alcohol before committing
the offences, there is no evidence to support the conclusion that this affected his
appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time he committed the
offences. His own testimony, it must be noted, failed to highlight this factor, which is
unsupported by the other evidence presented. It is trite that, for intoxication to be
considered as a substantial and compelling circumstance in mitigation, it must be
shown that the consumption of alcohol had impaired or affected the accused’s
mental faculties or judgment and thereby diminished his moral blameworthiness. 23
On the facts of this cas e, Mr Bobo appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct, was
able to distinguish right from wrong and nonetheless proceeded to rape and murder
the deceased.
the deceased.
21 S v Dodo above n 19 para 37.
22 S v Radebe and Another 2013 (2) SACR 165 (SCA) paras 13–14.
23 S v Cele 1990 (1) SACR 251 (A) at 254h–i and 255b–c.
[14] That he is a first offender, had consumed alcohol before committing the
offences, has been in custo dy for more than a year and his relatively low level of
education pale into insignificance when considering the gravity of the offences for
which he has been convicted. 24 There is also little to support the claim that Mr Bobo
is a suitable candidate for re habilitation, so that sentences short of life imprisonment
ought to be imposed. While he made certain admissions, he proclaimed his
innocence by concocting a fanciful tale in the face of overwhelming evidence,
including a DNA match, that revealed his crimi nal conduct. His actions upon his
return to the tavern, remaining there in jovial spirits until it closed that evening, and
the lies he told the deceased’s mother and the police in the aftermath of the incident
are not suggestive of rehabilitation prospect s. There has been no full disclosure of
his motive for committing the gruesome crimes, acceptance of wrongdoing or
expression of remorse. The rape and murder perpetrated, atrocious and repulsive as
these crimes are, were made more repugnant considering the age of the victim.25
[15] The evidence reveals Mr Bobo to be a violent individual who raped, stabbed
and applied deadly blunt force trauma to the head of the child, severing the neck
vessels and breaking the top and base of the skull, before simply abandonin g her
half-naked body and returning to the tavern to continue with an evening of
merriment. While he is a first offender, this shows a flagrant disregard for the sanctity
of human life and offends our society’s constitutional values to their core. 26 It would
be a misdirection in the present circumstances to elevate this consideration, the time
spent in custody and alcohol consumption, coupled with the other general or neutral
factors advanced in mitigation, to substantial and compelling circumstances sufficient
to impose lesser sentences than the prescribed minimum sentence. There is simply
to impose lesser sentences than the prescribed minimum sentence. There is simply
no justifiable basis to do so and no basis for a sympathetic approach on the facts. I
fully appreciate that the outcome of this analysis has profound consequences for Mr
Bobo and results in the imposition of the most severe sentence possible.
[16] As life imprisonment is the result, the sentences automatically run
concurrently in terms of legislation. Given the nature of the offences, the accused is
24 See Director of Public Prosecutions, Grahamstown v Peli 2018 (2) SACR 1 (SCA) para 9.
25 Ibid para 11.
26 Cf S v Trombetta [2024] ZANWHC 129 para 26.
declared unfit to possess a firearm. In terms of s 299A of the Act, any immediate
relative of the dec eased present is informed that they have a right, subject to the
directives issued by the Commissioner of Correctional Services, to make
representations when placement of the accused on parole, on day parole or under
correctional supervision is considered or to attend any relevant meeting of the parole
board.
Order
[17] The following sentences are imposed:
(i) Count 1, rape in contravention of section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual
Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 32 of 2007: life
imprisonment.
(ii) Count 2, murder: life imprisonment.
(iii) In terms of section 50(2) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and
Related Matters) Amendment Act, 32 of 2007, the particulars of the
accused, as a convicted sexual offender, must be entered into the National
Register for Sexual Offenders.
_________________________
A GOVINDJEE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Heard: 22 October 2025
Delivered: 24 October 2025
Appearances:
For the State: Adv Phikiso
Instructed by: Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions: Eastern Cape
For the Accused: Mr Charles
Instructed by: Legal Aid South Africa