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 NO: CC47/2024
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
DATE: 13-11-2025
SIGNATURE: PD. PHAHLANE
In the matter between:
THE STATE
And
PRINCE AMUKELANI MALULEKA ACCUSED
JUDGMENT
PHAHLANE, J
[1] The accused was charged with one (1) count of Murder read with the provisions of
section 51(1) and Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of
1997 (“the Act”) in that upon or about 17 December 2023, and at or near 1[...] Tjakane
Mamelodi East, in the district of Pretoria, the accused did unlawfully and intentionally
kill RENOLDA MALULEKA, a 56 year old female person. It is the State’s contention that
the murder of the deceased was planned or pre-meditated.
[2] The accused was legally represented throughout the trial proceedings by Ms. Simpson
from Legal Aid South Africa . He pleaded NOT GUILTY to the charge and made formal
admissions in terms of section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (“the
CPA”) in respect of the photo-album compiled by warrant officer TJ Seanego from the
Local Criminal Record Centre ( “LCRC”) depicting the crime scene and the body of the
deceased; the Post-Mortem report compiled by Dr Dorethea Maria Joubert after
conducting a post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased on 19 December
2023 in which she recorded the cause of death as: “STAB WOUNDS NECK”.
[3] Before the accused could plead to the charge, the court fully explained the
implications of the provisions of sections 51(1) of the Act, and the effect of section 220
admissions to the accused. The authenticity and the correctness of the post-mortem
report and the findings of Dr Dorethea Maria Joubert were not in dispute and were
confirmed by the accused.
[4] The State called eight (8) witnesses in support of its case , and the accused also
testified in his defence and did not call any witnesses.
[5] The deceased in this matter was the mother of the accused. It is common course that
the incident occurred at the house that was shared by both the accused and deceased.
It is further common cause that apart from the main house at the premises of erf 1[...]
Tjakane, Mamelodi East, there are three back rooms erected which are occupied by
other family members and that at the time of the i ncident, the main house was only
occupied by the accused and the deceased.
[6] It is not in dispute that there were family feuds which led to three family meetings
being held in an effort to reprimand the accused whom it was said to be the cause of
these feuds.
[7] The first witness on behalf of the State, Mr Ernest S teps Mahlangu (“Ernest”) is the
cousin of the accused who at the time of the incident , resided in one of the back
rooms at the premises where the accused and the deceased were residing. He stayed in
this premises from 2022 until 2024. He explained that the deceased was his aunt from his
father’s side and that they had a good relationship and loved each other as family. He
stated that the relationship between the deceased and the accused was a loving one
between mother and son.
[8] He testified that on the morning of 17 December 2023, he was awoken by the screams
of the accused calling out his name between the hours of 6am and 7am . He went to
the main house to enquire why the accused was calling him and when he got there, he
found the accused sitting on the kitchen floor, covering the deceased on the upper
body like he was hugging her, and he was crying.
[9] Ernest did not enter the house. He stood outside at a d istance of 2 metres away from
where the accused and the deceased were . He saw blood on the floor and noticed
that the deceased was injured and bleeding on the right side of her neck . He
immediately left to seek help from the community and to find transport to rush the
deceased to the hospital.
[10] He testified that he asked assistance from a certain man who was the first person to
arrive at the scene, but this man refused to give assistance because he noticed that
the deceased was no longer alive.
[11] Ernest explained that the deceased’s body was full of blood, and he could see blood
coming out of her body.
[12] He said he did not ask the accused what happened but instead, the accused
voluntarily said the following: “look, my mother has cut herself ”. When asked why did
he not enter the house when he saw the deceased in that condition, he responded
that he was scared of the accused because the accused had on several occasions made
threats by verbalising that “ gotlatswa setopo mo jarateng ”, meaning that someone
will die in th at yard, also meaning, there would be a dead body coming out of that
yard.
[13] He said the accused told him that the deceased came home at night and reported to
him that she had a problem at extension 6, and he (“Ernest”) responded by saying that
he was with the deceased at extension 6 and did not hear of any problem which the
deceased might have encountered.
[14] Ernest testified that although he did not check around the house, there was nothing
strange in the house to suggest that there was an intruder.
[15] As indicated above, there were many problems in the family which led to family
meetings being held in order to resolve any disputes within the family . Ernest
explained that he reported the problems to the family elders because the accused had
been making threats that there would be a dead body coming out of that yard.
[16] He further explained that in one of the meetings, he reported to the elders that there
was something that did not sit well with the deceased, and when the elders enquired
from the deceased to explain what was bothering her, the deceased responded that
the accused was troubling her and that she was fearing for her life. In this regard, he
the accused was troubling her and that she was fearing for her life. In this regard, he
explained that the deceased was scared of the accused and fearing for her life after
the threats were made by the accused – and also stated that the deceased was not
happy.
[17] He testified that the meetings were always attended by himself; his niece Tidimatso
Jesicca Maluleka; his great uncle Mr Peter Maluleke; Adelaide Maluleke; Elliot
Maluleke and the accused.
[18] Ernest stated that in addition to the countless problems they had, the accused used to
tell the deceased; his girlfriend; and some of their friends that there are people using
muti in the yard and that he is being bewitched . This led to another family meet ing
being held and the deceased complained that the accused was troubling her. It was
resolved at the meeting that the family should get along.
[19] Under cross-examination, he disputed the version that the accused did not make any
threats that there would be a dead body coming out of that yard – and said the
accused made those threats more than once. He confirmed that the kitchen door was
opened when he got to the main house and said he does not know what happened i n
the house. When asked about the emotional state of the accused when he saw him in
the kitchen, he responded that the accused had mi xed emotions and was looking for
help when he called him.
[20] Mr Peter Maluleka (“Mr Maluleka”) also took to the witness stan d. He is the
deceased’s elder brother and accordingly, the accused’s uncle. He explained that the
house where the accused and the deceased were staying is a family house belonging
to his late parents.
[21] He is one of the elders in the family but most importantly, he is the go -to person who
would always be called in situations where there are family issues to be attended to ,
including resolving disputes such as the ones which are now common cause in this
case.
[22] He testified that a report was made to him about the ongoing problems at th e house
and was called to mediate between Tidimatso; the accused and his mother because
they were not getting along. It was further reported that the accused was
troublesome. Mr Maluleka testified that three family meeti ngs were held in order to
try and defuse the tension amongst the family members.
[23] According to him, the first person to call him was the deceased who informed him that
she was living in fear at the house because of the constant bickering between the
accused and Tidimatso and that the accused had threatened to stab Tidimatso with a
knife and had said “someone must die in that house ”. The deceased also complained
and reported to him that the accused always threatened her with violence when he
demands money from her.
[24] The witness set up a meeting with the deceased, Tidimatso, a ccused, and Ernest. At
the meeting, Ernest complained that the accused threatened to stab Tidimatso and
said one must die in the house. During the first meeting, he pleaded with all parties to
make peace because they live d together in the house. The parties agreed to resolve
their disputes and to make peace . He reprimanded the accused and told the parties
that if they cannot find one another, they can call him to come and assist with
whatever problem they were facing. When he left at the end of the meeting, all
parties were happy , and the accused and Tidimatso hugged each other and asked for
forgiveness from one another.
[25] Mr Maluleka testified that subsequent thereafter, he needed to make a follow-up with
the parties but then the deceased called him and reported that what was agreed upon
at the previous meeting had been forgotten because they had gone back to the
situation which had prevailed previously. He went back for a second meeting and
spoke to the parties who then apologized. He explained that it was actually the
accused who apologized for his behaviour b ecause he was always trying to pick up a
fight with Tidimatso.
[26] He testified that the source of the problem was the accused because he was not
[26] He testified that the source of the problem was the accused because he was not
happy with Tidimatso being on the property. In this regard, he explained that from the
interaction he had with t he parties, he could deduce that there was no real or
concrete proof that Tidimatso had done something wrong, but the real problem was
that the accused was not happy with her presence on the property.
[27] The meeting concluded with him informing the parties that he would come back with
one of the elders in the family − his older brother who stays in Venda because maybe
then, they would all listen to him because his voice would carry more weight than his.
[28] Mr Maluleka said on the third meeting, which took place a week before the death of
the deceased , his elder brother was present. It was during this meeting that the
deceased also complained that the accused does not help with anything in the house
and that she was forced to do his laundry while the accused was unemployed and
would be sitting on the couch doing nothing − considering his age as an adult. He
stated that the deceased complained that the accused became aggressive each time
she told him that she does not have money. T he witness then suggested that maybe
finding a job for the accused might help.
[29] He explained that Ernest indicated during the meeting that there were things which
the deceased did not disclose to the elders and demonstrated how the accused had
during one of his outbursts grabbed the deceased by her throat and pull her towards
him.
[30] At this point the deceased burst into tears and explained that what Ernest was
demonstrating was what she was previously trying to explain when she said she lives
in fear and was afraid that the accused would one day do something bad to her . The
witness submitted that grabbing the deceased by her throat was tantamount to
violence.
[31] He stated that the complaint was always made by the deceased, Tidimatso and Ernest,
and that the accused had never complained tha t he was treated bad by these three
people. He testified that at the end of the meeting, the accused once again promised
not to go back to his bad behaviour.
[32] Mr Maluleka testified that he went to the crime scene on the day of the incident and
upon his arrival, he found bystanders, as well as the police who had already secured or
cordoned off the scene. He was called by a police officer to get inside the house, and
he found the deceased lying in a pool of blood.
[33] Nothing came out of the cross -examination of this witness, safe to confirm his earlier
evidence that the accused never got along with Tidimatso and that the deceased was
unhappy with the accused’s general behaviour and had complained that she was living
in fear and became more fearful when the accused demanded money from her.
[34] He confirmed that he attended two meetings with the parties and that during the
third meeting, his brother was present. It was put to him that the accused was not
present on the last meeting, and he disputed that, saying they would not have held a
meeting in the absence of the accused because ‘the accused was at the centre of the
family problems’. He explained that it would have been a futile exercise to hold the
meeting in the absence of the accused − given the fact that in his role as the go -to
person in the family, he must be informed of any problems arising.
[35] It was further put to him that the accused denies e ver threatening Tidimatso with a
knife but that it was Tidimatso who threatened the deceased with a knife. He disputed
that and stated that he would have been informed of that situation, if that really
happened. He disputed the version that the accused denies grabbing the deceased by
her clothes and stated that the accused will deny everything because he is in the
accused’s dock. He stressed that when the accused grabbed his mother by her clothes,
that was a form of violence.
[36] The evidence of Sergeant Alec Isaac Maletsi Mogagabe (Sgt Mogagabe) and that of
Sergeant Phuti Eric Chokwe (Sgt Chokwe) will interchangeably be considered
Sergeant Phuti Eric Chokwe (Sgt Chokwe) will interchangeably be considered
together. They are both stationed at Mamelodi SAPS, attached to Visible Policing, and
have fourteen ( 14) years and sixteen (16) years’ experience respectively in visible
policing. On the 17th of December 2023, they were both on duty as crew members
with Sgt Mogagabe posted as a driver.
[37] While busy doing their patrol duties, they received a complaint from Mamelodi SAPS
Client Service Centre (“CSC”) − of murder that occurred at the house address of 1[...]
Tjakane, mentioned in the indictment, and they proceeded to the said address.
[38] Upon arrival , they were approached by an unknown African male who identified
himself as Ernest Mahlangu and said that he is the younger brother to the deceased
and the uncle to the accused . Sgt Mogagabe testified that Ernest informed them that
the deceased had been stabbed to death and asked them to remove the accused from
the scene because they (the police) might attend to another scene because the
community or other family members might attack the accused.
[39] Sgt Chokwe testified that Ernest showed them where the accused was . He explained
that the accused was at the back of the toilet and was crying. The two officers
arrested the accused and placed him at the back of the police vehicle, and the accused
did not resist arrest . Sgt Mogagabe testified that he informed the accused of the
reasons for his arrest before he could even be arrested and further informed him of
his constitutional rights , and the accused appeared to have understood the rights
explained to him.
[40] Both Sgts Mogagabe and Chokwe stated that there were people gathered around who
demanded that the accused be handed over to them and wanted to attack him. Sgt
Mogagabe called one of their colleagues to come with a police van to come and take
the accused away from the scene a nd to book him at Mamelodi SAPS. The accused
was wearing blue jeans and a white T-shirt which appeared or looked like the blood
stains on it had been washed.
[41] Sgt Chokwe testified that they arrested the accused after a family member, specifically
Mr Ernest Mahlangu had reported to them that the accused used to threaten to kill his
mother. Ernest Mahlangu further reported to him that he was in his bedroom when
mother. Ernest Mahlangu further reported to him that he was in his bedroom when
he heard screams from the main house and when he proceeded there, he found the
accused crying and was holding the deceased.
[42] Sgts Mogagabe and Chokwe thereafter proceeded to the house and entered the
kitchen, and there they found the deceased lying on her back, and her head was facing
the northern direction. She was already covered with foil and was already declared
dead by the paramedics . They testified that there was a lot of blood on the kitchen
floor next to the stove and in the deceased bedroom on the bed and on the floor and
on the bedroom door . There was also blood stains on the blanket as depicted on
photos 29 and 30 of exhibit C.
[43] They also found a bloodied knife, blue in colour , which is depicted on photo 35 of the
same exhibit. This knife was found in the kitchen between the fridge and the stove.
They called the LCRC so that swabs could be taken from the knife. When the personnel
from the LCRC arrived, they took swabs from the knife and thereafter placed the knife
in the forensic bag . Sgt Mogagabe took the exhibit ba g and booked it in the SAP13
register with number 825/23. The SAP13 register was admitted into evidence as
exhibit D.
[44] Both Sergeants corroborated each other with regards to the injuries sustained by the
deceased. They both observed three stab wound s on the front part of the neck of the
deceased but could not remember whether the stab wounds were towards the left or
right side of the neck.
[45] They testified that they did not know the accused before the incident and neither d id
they have any relationship with any of the family members of the deceased.
[46] Under cross-examination, Sgt Mogagabe testified that he handed over the exhibits to
the CSC commander, constable Legodi, and the following day on the 18 th of December
2023 they were taken out for investigation. Responding to the question whether there
was anyone who approached the accused to speak to him while he was locked in the
police van, Sgt Chokwe stated that no one was allowed to speak to the accused while
he was in the police vehicle and that he wa s not aware that the accused was
he was in the police vehicle and that he wa s not aware that the accused was
approached by his uncle named Freddy, whom the accused alleges had approached
him and was swearing at him while in the van. He explained that he had no knowledge
of such incident because they were not stationery at the bakkie but had to go and
check up on the accused who was in the police van.
[47] Sgt Mogagabe on the other hand testified under cross-examination that a man who
identified himself as the accused ’s uncle requested to speak to the accused when the
accused was inside the police van, and he allowed him to speak to the accused but he
did not hear what they were taking about. He also did not hear anyone swearing at
the accused.
[48] The next witness for the State was Mr Gosiame Nakedi Mbungi (“Mr Nakedi”) . He
testified that he received a call in the morning between 7am and 8am from Mr
Leornard Elliot Maluleka (“Ntate Elliot”) who informed him about the incident and
requested him to rush to Tjakane at the scene. He stated that Ntate Elliot is his cousin
who passed away this year in January.
[49] He got into his vehicle and drove to the scene and upon his arrival, he saw the
ambulance and a police van. He parked his vehicle and went inside the yard and saw
some family members and members of the community. He went straight to Ntate
Elliot who was on the passage on the left side of the house and asked him what
happened, and Ntate Elliot responded that Renolda’s child, referring to the accused,
had killed Renolda and that she was laying in the kitchen.
[50] He proceeded to the kitchen and as he entered, he saw the foil and blood, and he
decided to go back to Ntate Elliot to ask what is it that the accused was using when he
killed his mother, and he was informed that the accused used a knife. He said he did
not believe that the accused could do such a thing, and he decided to go and ask the
accused himself. He found the accused at the back of the police van and he asked
permission to speak to the accused from the police officer whom he saw earlier when
he entered the yard. He explained to the officer that he is the accused’s uncle and was
therefore granted permission to speak to the accused. He was however warned not to
therefore granted permission to speak to the accused. He was however warned not to
intimidate or swear at the accused.
[51] He asked the accused how could he kill his mother and phrased the question as
follows: “How can you kill your mother, you have done an evil thing and in the history
of this family, this thing has never been done, and no one has ever killed his mother”.
[52] Mr Nakedi testified that the accused was crying and replied that he killed his mother
with a knife, but it was not intentional. He stated that he did not threaten the accused
or swear at him and explained that the police who granted him permission to speak to
the accused was nearby.
[53] He testified that he was heart broken after the accused told him that he killed his
mother, − and he just walked away and went to his vehicle and drove to his
workplace. While at work, a police officer came to take his statement, but he did not
give a statement that day.
[54] When asked about his observation on the condition of the house when he went to the
kitchen, he responded that everything was normal because he checked the condition
of the house, both inside and outside, and everything looked normal, and the door
was not broken . He stated that prior to the incident occurring, his relationship with
the accused was okay.
[55] Under cross-examination, he confirmed that he is the uncle of the accused and further
confirmed that he is also known as Freddy. He testified that at the time when he was
standing at the kitc hen door, he already knew that the deceased had passed on
because he was informed by Ernest that the deceased was stabbed inside the house.
He confirmed his earlier evidence that he was told by Ntate Elliot that the accused had
stabbed the deceased and sai d that he was shocked , and that is why he decided to
confront the accused so that he could ask him. He said he was with Ntate Elliot when
he approached the accused.
[56] Responding to the question whether the police officer who gave him permission to
speak to the accused could hear their conversation, he s aid he was speaking softly to
the accused and that no one could hear their conversation because there were people
gathered around who were making noise.
[57] He testified that when he approached the accused at the police van, he saw blood on
his T-shirt, but it was not a deep blood red colour because it looked like the accused
had washed his T -shirt or someone had splashed him with water, − but what he saw
was blood.
[58] Once again, he repeated the evidence that the accused told him that he killed his
mother, but that it was not intentional. Mr Nakedi said when the accused told him
what he did, he went numb and was shocked.
[59] He stated that the accused was crying when he questioned him and he asked the
following question to the accused: “how could you do this? You have humiliated the
family. What was your problem, and if you had a problem, why didn’t you talk to
someone in the family? T his is a disgrace you have cause us. O re baketse matlho a
batho”.
[60] The witness explained that because he was still in shock, him and Ntate Elliot just left
the accused there crying inside the police van . He told Ntate Elliot that he was not
emotionally okay and would be leaving and that he would rather go and sit at his
workplace.
[61] It was put to him that when he approached the accused at the back of the police van,
he did not ask the accused questions about what happened, but instead, he started
swearing at the accused, and therefore, the accused did not say that killed his mother
unintentionally. Mr Nakedi disputed that and stated that the accused told him what
he did to the deceased . He expressed that if Ntate Elliot was still alive, he would be
able to come to court to tell the court what happened and corroborate his evidence.
He accordingly disputed the version that Ntate Elliot was not present at the scene.
[62] Furthermore, he disputed the version that he u sed swear words or hurled insults at
the accused.
[63] The witness testified that when he approached the accused on that day, he saw a
totally different Prince (Prince, referring to the accused). He concluded his evidence by
stating that when he left on that day, he knew that the accused had killed the
deceased because he personally told him that, and he did not hear this from someone
else.
[64] Mr Bongani Charles Tshinavhe (“Mr Tshinavhe ”) also took to the witness stand in
support of the State’s case. He testified that he was in a love relationship with the
deceased from 2022 to December 2023 when she passed away.
[65] He testified that the deceased used to stay at hi s house, but she encountered
problems when she had to go back home in the morning and the accused would
refuse to open the door for her . It was for this reason that in June 2023, they both
decided to stay at the deceased’s house, that is until a week before she passed away.
[66] According to him, the accused was not happy with their relationship because he
fought with him. He explained that the accused once tried to beat him and he ran
away, but the accused chased after him and threw him with stones until he reached
his house. He reflected on the time when the accused took out a knife and threatened
to stab him. He reported the incident to the deceased who said she would speak to
the accused.
[67] He stated that there were days when the accused would be okay but if it happens that
on a random day the accused does not get what he wants, he would then start fighting
with him. He referred to an incident when the accused took out a knife and wanted to
stab him , but Ernest came and took the knife from him , and the accused began to
assault him (the witness) . He informed the deceased that he intend s laying charges
against the accused, but the deceased was against it because she loved the accused
dearly and he decided not to lay charges because he also loved the deceased.
dearly and he decided not to lay charges because he also loved the deceased.
[68] He further stated that there were times when the accused would demand money or
food and if what he wanted was not available, he would start arguments and shout at
everyone and thereafter force his mother to take out loans so that he could get what
he wanted and if he could still not get what he want ed, he would fight with his
mother. Mr Tshinavhe explained that even though the deceased loved the accused,
their relationship was not a good one.
[69] Like other witnesses, he testified that the accused did not only ma ke threats to his
mother, but he made threats to everyone who lived in that property when he said:
“one day someone will die in that house”. The witness explained that mostly when
such threats were made by the accused, the deceased would be fearful and made sure
that the accused gets what he wanted.
[70] Mr Tshinavhe testified that the accused used to physically assault his mother even
before he started having a love relationship with the deceased because the deceased
told him that the accused used to assault her. He stated that he once witnessed the
accused physically assaulting his mother by grabbing and pulling her and pushing her
head to bump it against the fridge.
[71] Under cross-examination he confirmed that there were days when the accused and
Tidimatso would be having a good relationship and there were days when they would
quarrel. This was a similar relationship which Tidimatso used to have with the
deceased. He testified that a week befo re the death of the deceased, Tidimatso and
the deceased did not quarrel. He stated that there were a lot of issues at that house
that related to the accused and anyone staying in that property including himself. He
explained that he left the property afte r the deceased told him that a decision was
taken by the family at a meeting that he should leave, and he did.
[72] He disputed the version that the accused did not threaten him − and stated that on
the day when the accused was assaulting him and wanted to stab him with a knife,
had it not be en for Ernest taking the knife from the accused, he would have been
had it not be en for Ernest taking the knife from the accused, he would have been
killed. He further disputed the version that the accused denies having said “ someone
will die in that yard” and stated that the accused used to utter th ose words every time
he was angry.
[73] With regards to the issue that the deceased had to take loans to give to the accused,
he stated that the accused used to go to a man named Kenneth to borrow money and
when he could not get money from Kenneth, he would then go to his mother and
demand money from her and force her to loan money from the same Kenneth.
[74] Ms Jesicca Tidimatso Maluleka (“Tidimatso”) also gave viva voce evidence. She
explained the relationship of the family members of Maluleka which is now common
cause in this case. She stayed in one of the back rooms in the property from June 2023
to Mid-February 2024.
[75] She testified that when she moved into that house, everything seemed to be going
well because she had a good relationship wi th the accused, but that changed a month
or two after moving into the property as the accused had threatened to stab her with
a red butter knife. The accused pointed the knife towards her and warned that in a
week or two, there will be a dead body coming o ut of that yard including herself. He
then licked the knife which he had in his possession. She said she was afraid of staying
in the family home.
[76] She corroborated the evidence that a family meeting was held with the elders and the
deceased reported that she was living in fear because the accused was threatening
her. She described her relationship with the deceased as a good one and said there
would be times when they would argue when she came home late from see ing her
friends or her boyfriend. She said the deceased was like a mother to her.
[77] With regards to the fights between the accused and the deceased, she testified that
the accused used to manhandle his mother by pushing her and grabbing her by her
clothes and using force against her. She explained that this usually happened when he
wanted money from his mother and she did not have it.
[78] She stated that a week wouldn’t go by with out the accused doing that to his mother.
[78] She stated that a week wouldn’t go by with out the accused doing that to his mother.
She further testified that the accused used to treat his mother like his girlfriend. She
said one day the deceased came running to her room because she was being attacked
by the accused who was manhandling her and grabbing her by the clothes – and the
deceased reported to her how the accused was assaulting her in the main house.
[79] When asked if she had ever threatened the accused with a knife, she responded in the
negative and stated that the accused once threatened her with a knife when they
were in the kitchen and she was dishing up for everyone, including the accused, but he
decided that he was going to make his own food.
[80] The last witness for the State was Pinki Johannes Mokhonwana . He is a sergeant
stationed at Mamelodi SAPS and the investigating officer in this case. His evidence
relates to having taken the exhibits to the for ensic laboratory and he does not know
the outcome or results of the analysis made in respect of the exhibits. His evidence
therefore did not assist the State in any way. The State closed its case and the accused
took the witness box.
[81] The evidence of the accused was that of a bare denial of all the allegations levelled
against him and disputed the evidence of all the State witnesses. He specifically
denied stabbing the deceased on the day of the incident. He said he was sleeping
when he heard someone gurgle in the kitchen and when he opened the door, he saw
the portion of the feet next to the fridge in a laying position . He went to check and
found that it was his mother laying there. The kitchen door was slightly opened, and
he pushed the top part of the door and called out or screamed for Ernest and his
girlfriend to call out for assistance.
[82] He then went to pick up his mother who was lying on her stomach. He said he picked
her up with her shoulders and she was facing him, and he placed her on his lap. He
tried talking to the deceased, but she did not respond.
[83] He testified that Ernest ran out to ask for help from the ne ighbours, and thereafter his
friend named Sphiwe arrived. Koketso, the next-door neighbour arrived and he went
friend named Sphiwe arrived. Koketso, the next-door neighbour arrived and he went
to fetch a pillow from the dining room. When he returned, he put the pillow in front of
the deceased’s bedroom door. It was then that he (the accused) took the deceased
and placed her on the pillow and went out with koketso. They went to sit outside, next
to the toilet.
[84] He testified further th at the last time he saw the deceased alive was around 1AM
when she knocked on his window when she came from attending a braai at his
brother's house. The deceased gave feedback of what happened at the braai and said
she might have caused a problem with the family and informed him that she was not
feeling well. He offered the deceased water in a jar and the deceased started vomiting
and thereafter went to sleep in the couch, and he went back to his room to sleep.
[85] The witness testified that he observed a po lice vehicle pulling up at his house and he
was then taken to the police van. While he was seated in the van, his uncle Freddy
came and started hurling insults at him and was also using vulgar words. He said he
did not respond to Uncle Freddy because he wa s crying. He denied telling any of his
family members that he had killed his mother by stabbing her.
[86] As far as the allegations that he had been troublesome and was the cause of the three
family meetings held, he denied threatening his mother or demanding money from
her. He denied assaulting his mother and disputed Tidimatso’s evidence that he
manhandled his mother and treated her like she was his girlfriend.
[87] He alleged that the whole family did not want him and his mother in that house. He
denied ever threatening that someone will die at the house or saying that there are
people using muti in the yard. He stated that there were no issues that could have
caused the problems in the family but admitted that he never got along with
Tidimatso.
[88] Under cross-examination, he testified that when he saw the deceased lying on the
floor, he panicked and he went to pick her up because she was still breathing. He
noticed that the door was opened. He said the first thing that came to his mind when
he saw that the deceased was injured is that someone had been in the house. He
however did not go outside to investigate whether there might have been someone in
however did not go outside to investigate whether there might have been someone in
the yard who injured the deceased or if there was an intruder because he was crying.
He said he panicked when he found the deceased and he decided to drag or pull her to
the other side.
[89] It is common cause that there are no eyewitnesses regarding the circumstances
surrounding the death of the deceased. With that being said, the question for
determination by this court is whether the evidence presented is enough to point at
the accused as the person who stabbed and killed the deceased.
[90] It was submitted on behalf of the accused that since there is no direct evidence that
can prove that the accused was responsible for s tabbing the deceased, it will not be
proper to reject his version on the basis that it is improbable . In this regard, it was
submitted that the accused’s version can only be rejected once the court has found
that on credible evidence, the accused’s version is false beyond reasonable doubt.
[91] The State on the other hand submitted that it has succeeded in proving its case
against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt considering that there was
corroboration in the e vidence of all state witnesses . It was further submitted that
although there is no direct evidence against the accused , the court should not lose
sight of the fact that courts have always been cautioned that it is not incumbent upon
the prosecution to eliminate every hypothesis which is inconsistent with the accused’s
innocence − having regard to the fact the circumstances of this case considered
holistically, weighs heavily in favour of the State to conclude that the version of the
accused is not reasonably possibly true.
[92] It is trite that in any criminal trial, the State bears the onus to prove the accused’s guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt . This burden will rest on the prosecution throughout the
trial. The State must also discharge the evidential burden by establishing a prima facie
case against the accused and o nce a prima facie case is established, the evidential
burden will shift to the accused to adduce evidence in order to escape conviction.
However, even if the accused does not adduce evidence, he will not be convicted if the
However, even if the accused does not adduce evidence, he will not be convicted if the
court is satisfied that the State has not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt 1. It
follows that there is therefore no duty on the accused to prove his innocence.
1 Principles of Evidence, PJ Schwikkard et al, 4th Edition, 2015, at page 602.
[93] This court is mindful of the holistic approach which a trial court is required to follow in
examining evidence before it. The court is al so alive of the principle that the trier of
facts must have regard to all considerations . In S v Mdlongwa 2 the Supreme Court of
Appeal endorsed the following principle enunciated in S v Van der Meyden 3 where
NUGENT J stated the following:
“A court does not base its conclusion, whether it be to convict or to
acquit on only part of the evidence… The proper test is that an
accused is about to be convicted if the evidence establishes his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, and the logical corollary is that he must be
acquitted if it is reasonably possible that he might be innocent. The
process of reasoning which is appropriate to the application of that
test in any particular case will depend on the nature of the evidence
which the court has before i t. What must be borne in mind, however,
is that the conclusion which is reached (whether it be to convict or to
acquit) must account for all the evidence. Some of the evidence might
be found to be false, some of it might be found to be unreliable, and
some of it might be found to be only possibly false or unreliable, but
none of it may simply be ignored”.
[94] It is clear from the above authority that a conspectus of all the evidence is required,
which must of course, be evaluated against the onus of any partic ular issue or in
respect of the case in its entirety4.
[95] The Supreme Court of Appeal in S v Chabalala 5 amplified as follows the ‘ holistic’
approach required by a trial court in examining the evidence on the question of the
guilt or innocence of an accused: “The correct approach is to weigh up all the elements
which points towards the guilt of the accused against all those which are indicativ e of
his innocence, taking proper account of the inherent strengths and weaknesses,
2 2010 (2) SACR 419 (SCA) at 11
3 1999 (1) SACR 447 (W)
4 S v Trainor 2003 (1) SACR 35 (SCA)
3 1999 (1) SACR 447 (W)
4 S v Trainor 2003 (1) SACR 35 (SCA)
5 2003 (1) SACR 134 (SCA) at para 15.
probabilities and improbabilities on both sides and, having done so, to decide whether
the balance weighs so heavily in favour of the State as to exclude any reasonable doubt
about the accused's guilt.”
[96] In the process of evaluating all the evidence before me, I must also determine
whether the accused’s version is reasonably possibly true, which would entitle him to
an acquittal.
[97] Both parties are ad idem that all family members of the deceased, including Mr
Tshinavhe corroborated each other on all material respects. This relates to the fact
that three family meetings were held in an attempt to resolve the family dispute s
which were undeniably centred around the fact that the deceased was living in
constant fear and subjected to physical abuse and threats by the accused.
[98] There are two aspects of concern which stands out in the evidence of the four
members of the deceased’s family, that is Ernest, Mr Peter Maluleka, Tidimatso, and
Mr Tshinavhe. The first relates to the fact that on several occasions, the accused made
a specific threat that “someone will die in that house or that there will be a dead body
coming out of that yard”. The second relates to a cry for help coming from the
deceased when she reported the following to Mr Peter Maluleka:
(a) That she was living in fear.
(b) That the accused always threatened her with violence and became aggressive
when demanding money from her, even when she t old him that she does not
have money.
(c) That she was living in constant fear and was afraid that the accused would one
day do something bad to her . Not only was this report made, but it was
accompanied by a demonstration made by Ernest, and confirmed by the deceased
when he (Ernest) told Mr Maluleka that the deceased did not disclose the physical
abuse she was subjected to by the accused − which occurred during o ne of his
outbursts whereby he had grabbed the deceased by her throat and pull her
outbursts whereby he had grabbed the deceased by her throat and pull her
towards him. Mr Maluleka testified that it was at th at moment that the deceased
burst into tears and explained that what Ernest had demonstrated was what she
had been trying to explain when she said she was fearing for her life.
[99] The chief post -mortem findings noted by Dr Dorethea Maria Joubert in her report
revealed that the deceased had multiple incised/stab wounds on the neck, mainly
from front to back. The stab wounds involve the strap muscles of the neck, right
internal jugular vein, trachea, and oesophagus with haemorrhage and aspiration of
blood. There are seven stab wounds on the right side of the neck, each measuring 1cm
as noted at paragraph s 4.1 to 4.7 of the report. These stab wounds have also been
identified in a drawing or sketch made by the doctor, and are clearly visible on photos
48 and 49 of exhibit C.
[100] What is noted by Dr Joubert in her report clearly shows that the deceased died a
gruesome death.
[101] As indicated above, the accused disputed the evidence of all the State witnesses and
denied stabbing the deceased and causing her death. He explained that when he got
to the kitchen after hearing a gurgling sound, he found the deceased lying on the floor
in a pool of blood.
[102] According to him, the kitchen door is a double -hung door, also known as a half door,
as can be clearly seen on photo 24 of exhibit C. He stated that the door was slightly
opened, and he pushed the top part of the door and called out or screamed for Ernest
to come and assist.
[103] What is peculiar and difficult to understand is that after finding the door slightly
opened, he suspected that someone might have been in the house, but he failed to go
outside to investigate if really there was an intruder. Not only did he behave in this way
but when his friend Koketso arrived and gave him a pillow to place it under the
deceased, he left the house with Koketso to go and sit outside next to the toilet.
[104] I have already indicated that there are no eyewitnesses in this case. However, the
court can consider circumstantial evidence, which is indirect evidence of a fact or facts
from which the court can infer a fact in issue. It is therefore impor tant to note that
circumstantial evidence is not considered to be inherently less reliable than direct
evidence6. Wigmore laments the use of the term “circumstantial” to denote evidence
that does not in any way derogate in value from direct evidence7.
[105] The principles in relation to inferential reasoning are well established. In determining
whether the circumstances of this case call for an inference to be drawn, if any, the
court should not consider each circumstance in isolation and give t he accused the
benefit of any reasonable doubt as to the inference to be drawn from each single
circumstance, but it must consider all the evidence before it cumulatively. By the same
token, the circumstances leading to the death of the deceased in this ca se cannot be
considered in isolation to the exclusion of all the evidence.
[106] It is therefore imperative to bear in mind that the cardinal rule is whether on the
conspectus of the evidence presented, the State has proved beyond a reasonable
doubt that the accused committed the offence. The Supreme Court of Appeal in S v
Ntsele8 stated that: “when dealing with circumstantial evidence, the court is not
required to consider every fragment individually. It was the cumulative impression,
with all the pieces of evidence made collectively, that had to be considered to
determine whether the accused’s guilt had been est ablished beyond a reasonable
doubt. Put differently, whether the circumstantial evidence available justifies the
inescapable inference that the accused is the one who killed the deceased by st abbing
her”.
[107] In adopting a holistic approach to the evaluation of all the evidence, the court in S v
[107] In adopting a holistic approach to the evaluation of all the evidence, the court in S v
Reddy and Others 9 stated that: “In assessing circumstantial evidence, one needs to
be careful not to approach such evidence upon a piece -meal basis and to subject
6 Musingadi and Others v S 2005 (1) SACR 395 (SCA) at para [20]
7 The Law of Evidence 3rd ed Vol 1 para [25] at page 400.
8 1998 (2) SACR 178 (SCA).
9 (416/94) [1996] ZASCA 55 (28 May 1996); 1996 (2) SACR 1 (A) at page 8C-D.
each individual piece of evidence to a consideration of whether it excludes the
reasonable possibility that the explanation given by an accused is true. The evidence
needs to be considered in its totality. It is only then that one can apply the oft-quoted
dictum in Rex v Blom10 where reference is made to two cardinal rules of logic which
cannot be ignored. These are, firstly, that the inference sought to be drawn must be
consistent with all the proved facts and secondly, the proved facts should be such
that they exclude every reasonable inference from them save the one sought to be
drawn. If these proved facts do not exclude all other reasonable inferences, then
there must be a doubt whether the inference sought to be drawn, is correct”.
[108] Having regard to the evidence of four witnesses who corroborated each other and
testified that the accused had on a number of occasions thr eatened the deceased,
manhandled her, physically assaulted her, and uttered the words that someone will
die in that yard, there is no doubt in my mind that the threats made by the accused
were well orchestrated and intended to be carried out by the accused.
[109] This court is mindful of the concession made by the accused that he did not dispute
his uncle’s (ie. Mr Peter Maluleka) evidence that his mother reported to him that he
had threatened her with violence and that family meetings were held because he was
the source of the problem. With that being said, he refused to answer questions asked
by the State when confronted about a r eport made to his uncle by stating that: “I
don’t want to answer the question why my uncle told the court that I threatened my
mother”.
[110] He also said that he does not want to answer or respond to the question as to why
Ernest would tell the court that he (the accused) had threatened his mother. When
asked to comment about six of his family members as regards his continued abuse on
his mother, he said that he does not want to answer why all the witnesses sa id that he
his mother, he said that he does not want to answer why all the witnesses sa id that he
was violent or that the family meetings were held because of him.
10 1939 AD 188 at 202-203.
[111] Mr Nakedi testified that on the day of the incident when he approached the accused
who was at the back of the police van, he was in the company of Ntate Elliot, and the
accused told him that he killed his mother with a knife, but it was not intentional. This
part of evidence was disputed by the accused when his counsel put to this witne ss
that the accused denies telling him that he killed the deceased unintentionally.
[112] What is interesting about the response of this witness was that , and I quote: “if Elliot
was still alive, he would be able to come to court to tell the court what happene d and
corroborate my evidence”. He also disputed the version that Ntate Elliot was not
present at the scene.
[113] It is on record that the statement of Ntate Elliot Maluleka who is no w deceased was
admitted into evidence as exhibit F. The date of the incident was 17 December 2023
and this statement was commissioned three days later on the 20 th of December 2023.
The following is noted at paragraph 4 of this statement:
“I further confirm that on the date and time of the alleged offence , I
was together with my younger brother Osiame Nakedi Mbungi (A6)
when the accused person confessed that he killed the deceased but was
not intending to kill the deceased”.
[114] In light of the above, the accused’s version that Ntate Elliot was not present at the
scene cannot be correct and is rejected as false because this evidence remains
unchallenged. Similarly, Tidimatso’s evidence that the deceased once came running to
her room, screaming for help and reported that the accused was manhandling her and
grabbing her by her clothes, remain unchallenged.
[115] The evaluation of the evidence before me leaves no room for doubt that the accused
is the one who killed the deceased. In my view, it is highly improbable that all five
witnesses, including Mr Tshin avhe and Ntate Elliot, the deceased, would falsely
implicate the accused. Mr Peter Maluleka testified that all the complains of violence
and threats were reported by Tidimatso, Ernest and the deceased. The accused has
never complained of being threatened or treated bad by these three people.
[116] To show that the accused was the troublemaker who continuously made threats to his
mother, the undisputed evidence of his uncle Mr Peter Maluleka was that on the
second meeting, the accused specifically apologized to him for his bad behaviour.
[117] It is trite that the evidence that is reliable should be weighed alongside the evidence
as may be found to be false. Independently verifiable evidence if any, should also be
weighed to see if it supports any of the evidence tendered. Accordingly, in considering
whether the evidence is reliable, the quality of that evidence must of necessity, be
evaluated as must corroborative evidence, if any. Evidence of course, must be
evaluated against the onus of any particular i ssue or in respect of the case in its
entirety.
[118] Corroboration denotes other evidence which independently confirms or supports
other evidence which renders the evidence of the accused person less probable on the
issues in dispute 11. In this regard, it is without a doubt that the undisputed evidence
contained in exhibit F independently confirms and supports the evidence of five
witnesses who throughout their evidence, gave it without exaggeration.
[119] Apart from the fact that the accused was not getting along with Tidimatso and not
being happy with Tidimatso being on the property, it does not seem to me that
Tidimatso was the target because the evidence before the court is very clear and
specific as to who the threats and physical assaults and abuse were directed to – and
that person is the deceased.
[120] I take note that circumstantial evidence rests ultimately on direct evidence and there
must be a foundation of proved or probable fact s from which to work 12. The proven
facts are as follows:
11 S v Gentle 2005 (1) SACR 420 (SCA).
12 R v Mthembu 1950 (1) SA 670 (A) at 679-680
1. The accused repeatedly made threats that there will be a dead body coming out
that property.
2. He specifically threatened the deceased and physically assaulted her by grabbing
her by her clothes and shoved her around.
3. The deceased made several reports to M r Peter Maluleka who was her elder
brother that her own son is threatening her with violence and that she is fearing
for her life and was scared that the accused might do something to her.
4. The accused made an admission to Mr Nakedi in the presence of Ntat e Elliot that
he killed his mother.
5. The accused was alone with the deceased in the house.
[121] A trite principle in our law is that the trier of facts must have regard to all
considerations which reasonably invite clarification, and in doing this, the court should
take the following into consideration, among others: all probabilities and
improbabilities; reliability and opportunity for observation of the respective witnesses;
the absence of interest or bias; the intrinsic merits or demerits of the evidence itself;
inconsistencies or contradictions and corroboration. Probabilities must likewise be
considered in the light of proven facts, and no proper inference can be drawn unless
there are objective facts from which to infer the other facts13.
[122] On a consideration of the evidence in its totality and in the light of the probabilities
and improbabilities in this case , I am of the view that the only inference to be drawn
from all the evidence and prove n facts taken and evaluated cumulatively is that the
accused is the one who killed the deceased on the day of the incident , and had the
intention to do so. Put differently, the objective probabilities surrounding the
circumstances of this case leaves no room for doubt that the deceased was killed by
non-other than the accused before this court. In my view, there was no intruder in the
house on that day when the deceased was killed, hence the accused did not go outside
to check.
to check.
13 See: S v Mdlongwa 2010 (2) SACR 419 (SCA) at para 11; S v Chabalala 2003 (1) SACR 134 (SCA) at para
15.
[123] Accordingly, the first cardinal rule in the case of Blom has been satisfied and complied
with. It therefore follows that the second rule in Blom has also been satisfied and
complied with as the proved facts exclude and leaves no room for doubt or any other
inference to be drawn, save for the one drawn by this court. Accordingly, I am of the
view that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence before me is
that the accused killed the deceased.
[124] With regards to the demeanour of the State witnesses, they all came out as honest and
reliable witnesses. They also did not contradict thems elves and their evidence
corroborated each other in all material respects, and they did not display any sign of
bias. They were clear in answering all questions without any hesitation. As for the
accused, his version of the events did not make sense at all. H e had difficulty
answering questions and was evasive in answering most of the questions and also
changed his version under cross-examination. But most importantly, he flatly refused
to answer some questions as demonstrated above.
[125] One such example was when asked by the State to explain why his friend splashed him
with water instead of helping him when it was clear to both of them that his mother
was in pain and needed some help, and he could not give a straight answer. He stated
that he was outside when he was splashed with water and when asked why there was
a liquid that looks like water in the kitchen next to the deceased, he then changed his
evidence to state that he was inside the house when water was poured onto him.
[126] I find the evidence of the accused to be untruthful and unreliable , and accordingly , I
am of the view that the accused is incapable of telling the truth. Consequently, it is my
considered view that the accused’s version is not reasonably possibly true.
[127] With regards to the State’s contention that the murder of the deceased was pre-
[127] With regards to the State’s contention that the murder of the deceased was pre-
meditated, it has been established by our courts that i n order to prove premeditation
where there is evidence or proven facts, the State must lead evidence to establish the
period of time between the accused forming the intent to murder the deceased, and
the carrying out of his intention14.
[128] In my view, the State succeeded in proving that the murder of the deceased was pre -
meditated because the evidence clearly shows that the acc used planned to kill the
deceased when he first made the threats that someone will die at the house. On that
fateful night, the accused carried out his well thought out plan of killing the deceased
and he knew how he was going to end h er life. What is unexplainable from his version
is the contradiction which he gave during his evidence as to how and who could have
killed the deceased.
[129] It is common cause that he screamed and called out for Ernest to come to the main
house, and without being asked any questions as to what happened, he volunteered to
give an explanation that the deceased had killed herself. Ernest did not respond. He
quickly left and went to look for assistance. With that in mind, the accused changed his
version and wanted to make it look lik e there was an intruder in the house who might
have killed the deceased because that was his second explanation.
[130] I have already indicated that the accused d id not go outside to see if someone had
broken into his house, but he chose the easy way out by creating a lie to say that he
found his mother lying in a pool of blood. If truly the accused was worried about his
mother, he would have gone out rushing, but he did not. This was not the behaviour of
someone who has lost his dear mother because by his own admission, when Koketso
came, he just left the deceased there in the kitchen and went to sit outside next to the
toilet. He did not even alert anyone that som eone might have been in the house to kill
his mother.
[131] When one has regard to his strange behaviour on that day, coupled with the fact that
he made an admission which he conveniently disputes in the face of corroborative
he made an admission which he conveniently disputes in the face of corroborative
evidence of exhibit F, and the rep eated threats he has made, I am of the view that the
plan to murder his victim, his own mother, started when he made the first threat
14 S v Raath 2009 (2) SACR 46 (CPD)
which he pronounced to the same people who resided with him in the same property
and who had to run for safety and protection to the great uncle, Mr Peter Maluleka.
[132] The concept of a planned or pre -meditated murder suggests a deliberate weighing-up
of the proposed criminal conduct as opposed to the commission of the crime on the
spur of the moment. An examination of all the circumstances surrounding the murder,
must be investigated to allow the court to make a determination and arrive at the
conclusion as to whether a particular murder is ‘planned or premeditated’ 15. The
concept of pre -meditation also refers to doing some thing deliberately after rationally
considering the timing or method of so doing, calculated to increase the likelihood of
success or to evade detection 16.
[133] In my view, the actions of the accused in executing or carrying out his well thought
plan to kill the deceased is in par with the decision in Taunyane v The State 17 where
the court held that premeditation includes a deliberate consideration and the
likelihood of success. In this matter, it took threats, assaults, planning and execution of
a well-orchestrated plan to achieve what the accused wanted to achieve.
[134] The injuries described in the post -mortem report clearly shows that the accused had
no regard for human life and did not hesitate to take the life of another human being.
The Constitution18 provides in section 11 that “everyone has the right to life ” which
is guaranteed as an unqualified right because human life cannot be intentionally
terminated.
[135] One of the supreme laws, which is also the fifth (5) commandment that every child
should never disregard or take for granted is found in Exodus 20 verse 12. It reads as
follows: “respect your father and your mother so that you may live a long life. The
sixth (6) commandment says do not commit murder”.
15 S v Raath 2009 (2) SACR 46 (C) at para 16.
15 S v Raath 2009 (2) SACR 46 (C) at para 16.
16 Taunyane v The State(Unreported Judgment) case number: A140/2015, South Gauteng Division (28
September 2016) at para 27
17 Fn 16.
18 Act 108 of 1996.
[136] I raise this being mindful of the evidence of repeated abuse by a child towards his
parent who cared for him and who loved him because Ernest, Mr Tshinavhe and
Tidimatso testified that despite the disagreements and constant bickering in the
house, the deceased loved the accused. Mr Tshinavhe specifically said − to show that
the deceased loved the accused dearly a s her child, when he wanted to report the
assaults perpetrated on him by the accused, the deceased pleaded with him not to
open a case against the accused with the police and he did not.
[137] The actions of the accused demonstrates a pattern of behaviour which falls under the
categories of Domestic Violence and gender -based violence (GBV). By definition,
Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive and threatening behaviour inside of a family
or household for example − and it takes a number of forms such as physical,
emotional, verbal, and financial abuse.
[138] It is on record that the accused always got angry and aggressive towards the deceased
when the deceased could not give him money. He went to an extend of forcing her to
go and take up loans so that he could be able to buy what he wanted – and not even
appreciating that what he was doing to his own mother was a despicable act which is
unimaginable.
[139] On the other hand, GBV is not only consid ered a violation of human rights, but it is
also a crime that undermines the principles of equality and dignity enshrined in our
Constitution.
[140] Our country is currently up in arms with the scourge of th ese violent acts of GBV;
Domestic Violence and the killing of women, which has caused an outcry in the society
and the community at large.
[141] Having considered all the evidence before me and the submissions made by both
counsels, I am satisfied, and of the view that the State succe eded in proving its case
against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and further succeeded in proving that
the murder of the deceased was pre-meditated.
[142] In the circumstance, the following order is made:
1. The accused is found guilty of murder read with the provisions of section 51(1) of
the CLAA.
PD. PHAHLANE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
APPEARANCES
For the State : Adv. L. Sivhidzho
Instructed by : Director of Public Prosecutions, Pretoria
For the Accused : Adv. S. Sampson
Instructed by : Legal Aid South Africa
Heard : 24-27 March 2025; 10 April 2025; 25-29 August & 17 October 2025
Judgment Delivered : 13 November 2025