Reportllblc:
Circufule to Judges:
Circulate to Magistrates:
Circulate to Regional Mogistrotcs:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTH WEST DIVISION - MAHIKENG
In the appeal of:
TEBOGO SEPATO
and
THE STATE
Coram: Titus AJ & Zwiegelaar AJ
CASE NO: CA47 /2024
RCS/77/2022
Appellant
Respondent
Delivered: Tbisjudgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties
through their legal representatives> email addresses. The date for the hand-dQwn is
deemed to be 27 January 2026.
YES/ NO
YF.S/NO
YES/NO
YES/NO
ORDER
1. The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
2. The sentence is confumed.
3. The consequential order in leims of section 103(1) of the Firca1ms
Control Act 60 of 2000 is confirmed.
JUDGMENT
TITUS AJ
[l] The appellant noted an appeal to this Court agai11St both conviction and the
sentence imposed on him by the Regional Court. The parties agreed to the disposal
of the appeal on the papers as provided for by section 19 (a) of the Superior Courts
Act1_.
[2] The record reflects lhat the trial court g-ranted leave to appeal only .in respect
of sentence. It is trite that where an applicant seeks leave to appeal against both
conviction and sentence, and the trial court grants leave only in respect of sentence,
the order constitutes a refusal of leave on the conviction.
1 Act No. Act 10 of 2013.
2
[3] In terms of section 309C of the Criminal Procedure Act SI of 1977, the
applicant may petition the Judge President for leave to appeal the conviction. There
is, however, no such petition apparent from the record.
[4) In the absence of such leave and petition, this Court lacks jurisdiction to
entertain the appeal against conviction. The appeal therefore falls to be determined
solely within the confines of the Jcave granted, namely the challenge to sentence.
This then is the issue that this Court turns to deal with.
[SJ On 28 February 2023, the appellant was convicted in the Regional Court fm
the Regional Division of North \Vest, held at Klcrksdorp. on a count of attempted
murder. That same day, he was sentenced to a 7-year term of imprisonment and also
declared automatically unf1t to possess a firearm in terms of section l 03 of Act 60
of 2000.
[6j The trial court had found that the appellant unlawfully and intentionally
attempted to kill the complainant, a male person, on S January 2020, at Kanana, by
shooting him multiple times with a firearm. As a result of the shooting, the
complainant suffered gunshot wounds to his head and right forearrn2.
(7) On 23 June 2023, the appellant applied for leave to the trial court to appeal
botl1 his conviction and sentence. The iTial court condoned the late application.
2 Record, page 92, Exhibit A
3
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
[8) The appellant contends:
'' AD SENTENCE
The sentence imposed by the learned regional magistrate is excessive and
induces a sense of shock to the reasonable man more particularly as the learned
magistrate.
1. Erred in over-emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the
interests of society.
2. . .. erred in not attachlng sufficitmt weight to the Appellant's personal
circumstances; and that Appellant is relatively young.
3. .. .erred in not imposing their forms of punishment like
imprisonment in tem1s of Section 276( l )(h) and/or Correctiona l
Supervision or a fine.
4. . .. erred in imposing a sentence of 7 years' imprisonment, which
evoke a feeling of shock and outrage being had to the fact that it
denies the Applicant a change for rehabilitation, also having regards
to the amount involved nnd circumstances of the case.
5. Failing to attach sufficient weight to the fact that long term
imprisonment will negatively offect the Applicant who is relatively
young and first offender.
6. Failing to attach sufficient weight to the fact that direct
imprisonment would not only affect the Appellant but his family as
well more so he was at self-employed. " (sic)
4
AD SENTENCE
[9] It is trite that sentencing lies within the discretion of the trial court and that a
court of appeal will not lightly interfere with the sentence imposed. The powers of
the com1. of appeal are relatively limited to those instru1ces where the sentence is
vitiated by i1Tegularity or misdirection or where there is a striking disparity between
the sentence passed and that which this court would have imposed3. It is only when
the trial court has exercised its discretion in an improper manner or misdirected itself
that interference wilJ be warranted.4
[ 10] The Appellant argues that the trial court failed to emphasize mitigating factors
set out in paragraph [8] above. The trial court did consider these factors but,
respectfully, conectly found that they were outweighed by the seriousness of the
offence, the interests of society, and the need for dete1Tence.
(11] The offence in question is undeniably grave. The appelJant discharged a
firearm twice into the complainant's body, causing him serious injury and placing
the complainant's life in imminent danger. The use of a firea1111 in interpersonal
violence remains a matter of acute public concern, as the Slate has argued. The trial
court correctly emphasised the need for deterrence and the protection of the
community from the scourge of firearm related violence. While the appelhmt's
3 Orobler v S 2015 (2) SACR 2 I O (SCA) nt para 5.
~ S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 {A)
5
personal circumstances were properly p]aced before the court, they cannot eclipse
the seriousness of the conduct or the clear intenl Lo kill. The fact that the Appellant
is a first offender does not diminish the gravity of the offence which is, as the State
argues, prevalent in that, and the broader, community. As it appears from the record,
the Appellant also displayed no remorse for his actions. The trial cou1t was entitled
to impose a sentence that reflects society's condemnation of such conduct.
r 12] Tl1c sentence imposed is neitl)er shockingly inappropriate nor
disproportionate. It reflects a balanced consideration of the triad of factors in S v
Zinn and do~s not exhibit any misdirection. The appeal against sentence is therefore
dismissed.
Order
[ 19] In the premises, the following order is made:
[i] The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
lii] The sentence is confmned.
[iii] The consequenlial order in terms of section 103(1) of the Firearms Control
Act 60 of 2000 is confilmed.
RR TITUS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTH WEST DMSION
6
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant:
For Respondent:
I concur,
1/
er ZWIEGELAAR
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTH WEST DMSION
MR. E SETUMU
Legal Aid South Africa
Mahikeng Local Office
Borekelong .House
742 Dr James MorokaDrive
MMABA THO
ADVKEMAMPO
Respondent' s counsel
North West Province
2nd Floor, Megacity Shopping Complex
3]39 Sekame Road
.MrvIBATHO
7
Judgment Reserved: 06 June 2025
Judgment Handed Down: 27 January 2026
8