(1) REPORTABLE : NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDG ES : NO /
(3) REVISED . ✓
DATE: i.ff r
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
THULANI PETROS DLADLA
and
THE STATE
JUDGMENT
Case no. AJ0/2O25
Applicant
(Appellant)
Respondent
(Respondent)
2
The judgm ent and order are published and distributed electronically.
PA VAN NIEKERK, AJ
[1] Applicant applies for the postponement of an appeal that was set down for hearing on 25
November 2025. The appeal is against the conviction of the Applicant on the charges of
kidnapping and rape of a minor child in respect of which the Applicant was found guilty on
29 October 2024.
[2] On 11 December 2024 the Applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the rape
charge and was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment in respect of the kidnapping charge.
The Applicant was found guilty and sentenced in the Regional Court held at Soshanguve
before Magistrate Molwana .
[3] The postponement of the appeal is applied for on the grounds that the appeal record is
incomplete. The ancillary orders sought for by Applicant in the substantive application for
a postponement of the appeal serves to achieve the proper reconstruction of the record. It
is common cause that the record, as it presently stands, does not reflect the proceedings
of a trial-within-a-trial which was held on the 17th of April 2024 and which related to the
admissibility of the complaint's witness statement. Prima facie it appears that the reasons
for the ruling of the court a quo on the admissibility of that statement are material for
purposes of the adjudication of the appeal.
[4] From correspondence attached to the application for postponement of the appeal it
appears that the Regional Magistrate who presided in the court a quo may be reluctant to
3
facilitate the reconstruction of the record. The primary responsibility to provide a
complete record of the proceedings rests on the Presiding Officer.1
[5] Correspondence attached to the application confirms that the Director of Public
Prosecutions agree that the record should be constructed properly in order for the appeal
to be prosecuted.
[6] In the circumstances it is therefore necessary that the Regional Magistrate who presided
in the proceedings in the court a quo be ordered to facilitate the reconstruction of the
record insofar as the proceedings in relation to the aforesaid trail-within-a-trial is not
included in the record.
[7] I therefore propose the following order:
[1] The appeal is postponed sine die, pending the reconstruction of the record of
proceedings;
[2] The Regional Court Magistrate, Mr Molwana , Soshanguve, is ordered to facilitate
the reconstruction of the record within 30 calendar days from date of this order;
[3] The Regional Magistrate shall ensure the reconstruction/transcribing of all the
evidence recorded in the trial-within-a-trial conducted on the 17th April 2024,
including the testimony of the witness, closing addresses by both parties and
judgment in relation to the admissibility of the statement of the complainant, and
forward the reconstructed record to the Registrar of the High Court, Pretoria;
[4) The Clerk of the Regional Court Magistrate (Mr Molwana) is ordered to report to
the Deputy Judge President of the Gauteng Division, Pretoria, by no later than 15
1 5 v N khahle 2021 (1) SAC R 336 {FB} para. {15) to {20}
4
January 2026 on the outcome of the reconstruction of the record, alternatively to
provide reasons why the record could not be reconstructed and what steps are
taken to remedy the absence of a comp lete record.
PA VAN NIEKERK AJ
ACT ING JUDGE OF THE GAU TEN G DIVISION , PRETORIA