IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN
WC CASE NO.: A202/2025
In the matter between:
WAYDON BEZUIDENHOUT APPELLANT
and
THE STATE RESPONDENT
Coram: Goliath, DJP et Thulare, J et Pangarker, J
Heard: 27 February 2026
Delivered: Electronically on 13 March 2026.
ORDER
The appeal against sentence is dismissed. The sentence of life imprisonment is
confirmed.
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY ON 13 MARCH 2026
GOLIATH, DJP (Thulare J et Pangarker J concurring):
[1] This is an appeal against sentence. On 3 October 2024 the appellant was
convicted in the High Court sitting in Knysna on charges of kidnapping, murder and
defeating the ends of jus tice. On 04 October 2024 he was sentenced to 5 years
imprisonment in respect of the kidnapping charge, 12 months’ imprisonment in
respect of defeating the ends of justice and life imprisonment on the count of murder.
In terms of the provisions of section 39 of the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998
it was ordered that the sentences of 5 years and 12 months were to run concurrently
with the sentence of life imprisonment. The appeal lies only against the sentence of
life imprisonment.
[2] The appellant pleaded not guilty to all the charges . The appellant and the
deceased, Mr Gladman Mawande Kondlo were friends for approximately two years
and lived in close proximity to each other in Khayalethu. Although they did not have
much in common except for socialising and drinking, both were entrepreneurs who
ran their own business es. The appellant was the sole proprietor of a funeral parlour
located in Knysna main road, known as Cassandra Funerals. The deceased
operated a successful bed and breakfast es tablishment at the upper floor of his
residence in the tourism sector under the name and style of Wandu Tours and Stays.
The appellant often stayed over at the guest house as a paying guest.
[3] On Monday 17 January 2022 just before 6pm the body of Mr Kondlo was
discovered in a forest by an off -duty uniformed police officer, Sergeant Mfundo
Matshaya, who went to look for his cattle that was grazing in the vicinity of the
Uniondale Road and Bokkoppie Road near Denron Quarry, Knysna . While
searching for his cattle in the bush , he discovered a body in a downhill sloped area
next to a tree. He observed that there was blood on the legs of the body, and that the
head was covered with plastic. He reported the matter to South African Police
Service and sent a message on the WhatsApp group.
[4] At approximately 7pm Sergeant Juan Smit , accompanied by Sergeant
Ackerman, were the first uniformed members of the South African Police Service to
arrive on the scene. Smit observed that the deceased was lying on his back with his
hands behind his back. He was wearing a white vest and a black short. His head
was covered with a black bag that was tied with a rope. He observed a rope around
his mouth. He further observed blood on his neck and legs. The investigating officer,
sergeant Vusumzi Xokozela , was on duty w hen the body of the deceased was
discovered. He was the standby detective on duty. He arrived at the bod y scene
eight minutes to seven the evening. He conducted an interview with the police officer
who discovered the body.
[5] Warrant Officer Stander took photographs at the scene . He confirmed that the
deceased’s hands were tied with a shoelace or rope behind his back and his feet
were tied with pinkish t-shirt material cloth. The black bag over his head resembled a
black r efuse bag. When the bag was removed fro m his face by mortuary staff he
observed a wound on the forehead of the deceased . There was a tape or strap
around the head which protruded through the mouth.
[6] Dr Hurst conducted an autopsy on the body of the deceased on 20 January
2022. She confirmed that the condition of the body of the deceased aligned with
recent death two days ago. She observed blunt force trauma mainly on the head
which resembled a hard blow causing a head fractu re. There was a subarachnoid
haemorrhage into the scalp but no significant brain injury. However, the extent of the
injury to the head could cause a concussion and loss of consciousness or
incapacitation.
[7] There was a ligature around the neck, and the airways were covered with a
plastic bag . A white shoelace was tightly tied around the neck in a double knot .
Beneath the lace was an indentation of the soft tissue which means it compressed
the neck significantly enough to cause such indentation. The deceased had a wad in
the mouth, and his mouth was tightly tied with tape. There was significant indentation
of the mouth with the tape, resulting in the wad being pushed back into the throat. A
black refuse bag covered the entire face which was tied around the neck with flat box
tape in a double knot on the right si de of the neck anteriorly in front. The box tape
served to keep the black plastic bag in place.
[8] Black insulation tape was tied tightly around the head, through the mouth with
another section tied tightly around the neck . The insulation tape was wound around
the head several times to keep the wad in place. He had a blood stained wad in the
mouth, and his mouth was tightly tied with the tape . His lips were swollen and there
was a patchy contusion on the inner aspects of the lips on the right side as well as a
1.5-centimetre laceration. There was a superficial laceration at the edge of the upper
lip.
[9] On removal of the black insulation tape there was a plate material band which
was one centimetre wide deeply inside the mouth. The material was seven by four
by three centimetres , in the mouth, held in place by insulation tape. The plastic bag
over the head, shoelace around the neck, insulation tape and the material in the
mouth could have resulted in smothering and strangulation.
[10] The legs of the deceased were tied with light orange t -shirt material. There
were three lacerations to the head, namely, at the right temporal region, left temporal
region and the left occipital region at the back of the head . There was also a
laceration on the forehead. In summary, there were a total of five lacerations located
on top of the head, the sides of the head and both sides and in front. She concluded
that the deceased was struck at least five times. The fracture of the right parietal
bones on top of the head towards the back was inflicted with significant force. She
concluded that the scalp bled significantly before the black bag was put over his
head. The airways were obstructed by means of pressure of the rope, a wad in the
mouth, and plastic bag which cuts the oxygen. She concluded that the cause of
death was strangulation, smothering and blunt force trauma.
[11] Mr Fezile Willie Captain , the opposite neighbour of the deceased, confirmed
that the deceased was at his residence on Saturday 15 January 2022 at
approximately 2pm the afternoon. They sat together under a tree in front of his
residence. The deceased looked tired, stayed for about 30 minutes,
and left.
[12] The last time the deceased was seen was on Saturday 15 January 2022 at
approximately 22h22. His children were at home and observed the deceased leave
home in the company of the appellant and two guests at the guest house. He was
dressed casually in a t -shirt, shorts and flip -flops. The deceased called his son
before his departure . His daughter answered the call, and he called out her name
multiple times. The children regarded it as a light-hearted moment, questioning as to
the reason for the call since they were all at home. The cell phone records confirm a
call to and from his son’s cell phone at the time. The deceased left his residence in a
black car and never returned home.
[13] On 18 January 2022 the accused made an exculpatory statement to the
investigating officer when he was still considered as a person of interest who could
provide information as to the whereabouts of the deceased. The statement of the
appellant essential ly provided an account of his whereabouts on Saturday 15
January 2022 and Sunday 16 January 2022. The appellant stated that he slept at the
deceased’s guesthouse on Friday 14 January 2022 . The next morning, he
discovered that his cell phone was missing, but the sim card was left behind. He
established that R1000,00 was stolen from his wallet. He also discovered damage to
the front tyre of his rented vehicle , a Nissan X -Trail, which was parked at the
residence of the deceased. He confronted the deceased about the missing items, but
he was unable to respond and the deceased apologised.
[14] Saturday morning, 15 January 2022 he had to attend to a funera l at The
Crags, Knysna . His two workers Duwayne and Patrick arrived early at the
deceased’s house with a black Ford rented by Mamma China. He rented the Nissan
X-Trail for funeral purposes which he referred to as the “family car”. The workers left
with the Ford and Nissan X-Trail to attend to funeral preparations in Crags. The
appellant and deceased walked to the residence of Mamma China to collect a n
additional vehicle, a black Mazda for the funeral. They drove to his office to collect
funeral equipment, a stretch tent and chair cover s, placed it in the black Mazda , and
left for The Crags.
[15] The deceased assisted him to prepare the burial site. There were other
people present at the burial site . While they were there, Mamma China ca lled and
requested him to return her Mazda vehicle because she had an event at Mavusi’s
house. The two of them left to delive r the vehicle to Mamma China. Before he
delivered the vehicle the de ceased requested him to drop him at Magadla’s Tavern
at approximately 11am. Later the same day he assisted Mamma China with a chore
to load a tent in the car. He then drove past Magadla’s Taven and saw the deceased
sitting on the rail at the store.
[16] He subsequently went home and took his car to the car wash . His wife then
accompanied him to a braai at Leisure Island , and later the evening they went to
numerous entertainment venues namely Elegant, Ingoma, S’khulu’s Tavern and
Spotlight to do what is known as club hopping. They went home early Sunday
morning and he slept at home. He went to the residence of the deceased on Sunday
afternoon and Monday morning looking for the deceased. On both occasions he was
informed that the deceased was not at home. The wife of the deceased called him
on Monday afternoon to enquire about the whereabouts of the deceased. He denied
that he was at the residence of the deceased on Saturday evening as conveyed by
the children of the deceased.
[17] At the hearing of the matter the appellant did not give a plea explanation, but
made certain admissions regarding the identity of the deceased, post mortem report,
certain exhibits, photographs, sketch plans, crime scene exhibits , forensic reports,
cctv report, tracker report of the Nissan X -Trail, cell phone records and DNA reports
in respect of exhibits.
[18] The appellant testified in his defence and elaborated on the version provided
in his initial statement. He explained that he became embroiled in a drug syndicate
and protection racket controlled by Mavusi , the owner of Nellies Tavern. Three to
four weeks before the death of the deceased he attended a meeting at the home of
Alister Galant in Hornlee, where Mavusi and Khaya were also present. He was
instructed to shoot the deceased and Khaya provided with a 9mm firearm. The plan
was that since he was close to the deceased, he had to lure the deceased to a
certain place for the hit to be executed. He was informed t hat Mavusi was already
paid for the hit. The hit had to take place after the meeting, but he did not have the
courage to do so. He stated that he was hesitant but feared for the safety and the
safety of his family and reluctantly agreed to the command.
[19] In his initial statement the last time he saw the deceased was when he
dropped him at Magadla’s Tavern. In his testimony he expounded on this version. He
testified that after he dropped the deceased off near Magadla ’s Tavern he went to
Mamma China to deliver the motor vehicle. Thereafter he assisted Mamma China to
deliver chairs and equipment to Mavusi’s house where there was a welcoming
ceremony for an initiate. M avusi arrived in a Quantum vehicle and requested him to
follow him to his tavern . Mavusi expressed his displeasure at his failure to execute
the hit on the deceased and informed him that a hitman was hired who will arrive on
that day between 4pm and 6pm from Port Elizabeth.
[20] With regard to the firearm, the appellant stated that he had placed the gun in
the cubby hole of the Nissan X -trail on Saturday 14 September 2022 before he went
to The Crags for funeral preparations accompanied by the deceased . He eventually
removed it and placed it in the cubbyhole of the black Mazda of Mam ma China ,
whereafter he retrieved it and hid it behind a wardrobe at his residence. He testified
that he never used the firearm and returned it to Khaya three weeks after the death
of the deceased. Mamma China confirmed that she saw the appellant r emove the
firearm from the cubby hole of her vehicle and was alarmed at this dis covery. Mr
Mbulelo Matlala who worked at Seun’s car wash also saw the firearm lying in the
boot under the carpet covering the spare wheel when he cleaned the vehicle on
Saturday afternoon.
[21] A crucial aspect in the appellant’s testimony which was omitted from his
statement was that after he went club hopping with his wife , a series of events
involving the deceased had occurred. He stated that after club hopping he and his
wife arrived home in the early hours of Sunday morning . He dropped his wife at
home and thereafter went to the home of the deceas ed at approximately 5 am. He
stated that his intention was to drink with the deceased. When he arrived at the
home of the deceased, he observed that a s tationary white bakkie was parked in
front of the guest house. He parked the Nissan X -trail in the driveway. He entered
the house and saw someone at the top of the s tairs and went upstairs. H e saw the
deceased lying on the floor near the breakfast area. His hands were tied behind his
back.
[22] The people present w ere Mavusi, Yonele Best, the hitman and his girlfriend.
The de ceased frantically called out to him to help him. The deceased was taken
down the stairs at gunpoint with the hitman walking behind him. He was placed in the
boot of the X -Trail. Mavusa drove the vehicle, and the appellant was seated at the
back in the middle with Yonele Best and the hitman on either side. Khaya was
driving the bakkie and the lady accompanied him in the bakkie.
[23] They drove on the R339 towards Uniondale Road and stopped along the road
at the Denron area. The decea sed was aggressively taken from the boot, and he
landed on his knees. He shouted and screamed for help. He was bare feet and wore
a vest. They started to assault him with fists, hitting him with the butt of the pistol and
kicking him on his head. Mavusi called him a dog while s tomping him on his head.
The deceased was laying on the ground. He tried to intervene, to no avail.
[24] They decided to get some string or ropes . They put him back in the boot and
went to Gaddafi Shop which is located next to Nellie’s Tavern. Yonele went to the
tavern to fetch ropes and two spades. He also took a plastic bag. Ever yone else
remained in the vehicles. As they left the hitman forcefully pulled the plastic over the
deceased’s head , but the plastic was not tied at this stage . They returned to
Bokkoppie Road. The deceased was crying in the boot. Yonele and the hitman
violently removed the deceased from the boot. He fell to the ground. At this stage
Mavusi instructed him to leave the scene and threatened him not to inform anyone
what had happened. He jumped over the seat and drove away from the scene .
According to the appellant the deceased was still alive at that stage.
[25] He drove aimlessly in Sanlam and tried to call a friend , whereafter he went to
the residence of the de ceased at approximately 5am. He knocked on the door and
asked the children whether the deceased was home. He returned to the car and
remained seated in the car for a considerable time and cried. He left the vehicle in
front of the guesthouse driveway and walked home.
[26] He changed his clothes and p ut on a blue shirt, pyjama pants and slippers.
He then went back to the vehicle and drove to Total Garage where he sat in the car
for 58 minutes crying and fell asleep. He then went to the Shell garage at
approximately 9 o’clock to wash the car. He returned to the residence of the
deceased and again inquired about the whereabouts of the deceased.
[27] The appellant stated that on Sunday afternoon, 16 January 2022, Mavusa and
Yonela arrived at his house and threatened him not to report the matter to the South
African Police. He was informed that they got rid of the deceased. Mavusa showed
him a picture o f the deceased. He returned to the deceased’s house on Monday
morning to look for the deceased. The wife of the deceased called him on Monday to
inform him that she was looking for the deceased.
[28] Video footage was obtained of the vehicle at the car w ash. Ms Ashley
Boethius, an empl oyee at Allsound Securit y in Knysna provided a comprehensive
analysis of CCTV footage of the movements of the appellant at Total Garage and
Shell Garage. The images at Shell Garage specifically shows that the appellant
supervised the cleaning of the exterior of the car whereafter it was parked under a
car port where the boot was extensively vacuumed.
[29] The investigating officer made a breakthrough when he received information
that the appellant was seen at the Total Garage on Saturday evening, on 15 January
2022 and at the Shell Garage on Sunday, 16 January 2022. He scrutinized the
video footage of the Nissan X -trail retrieved by All sound Security and obtained the
registration number of the vehicle.
[30] He established that the appellant rented the vehicle from Thrifty Car Rental at
George Airport on the afternoon of Friday, 14 Jan uary 2022 and returned it on
Wednesday 18 January 2022. The appellan t w as the last person that used the
vehicle. The tracker report of the vehicle was obtained, and the vehicle was seized
on 26 January 2022 for forensic examination. Captain Joubert examined
the vehicle and found traces of blood in the boot that was found to be that of the
deceased. Significantly, the combination of forensic evidence comprising of vehicle
tracking, cell phone tracking and CCTV footage provided a compelling picture of the
movements of the appellant during the course of the fated weekend when the
deceased was kidnapped and murdered.
[31] The court found the version of the State to be largely uncontentious and
acceptable. The Court found that the appellant held back on his version in order to
manipulate the facts put up by the State . The court scrutinized his version and found
that it was crafted to manipulate the compelling set of facts put up by the State which
established a strong prima facie case against him. The court further found that the
appellant tailored his version to create a false alibi during crucial stages of the
commission of the crimes , deliberately switched off his phone to support his false
alibi, and was intentionally deceiving the court to believe that his wife was with him at
certain times in order to strengthen his false alibi. The court therefore concluded that
the appellant was dishonest and manipulative.
[32] The court held that the murder of the deceased was planned and
premeditated. The court concluded that the deceased must have been kidnapped
and held somewhere while the appellant went club hopping. The court rejected his
version as false and found that his evidence pointed to the involvement of other
henchmen whom the appellant so ught to protect. The court concluded that clear
objective evidence established that the appellant did not act alone and that there
were co-perpetrators responsible for the abduction and death of the deceased who
were not before the court.
[33] The court therefore found the appellant liable to be convicted of the charges
for his participation in the kidnapping and murder of the deceased based on the
doctrine of common purpose. In convicting the appellant on the charge of defeating
the ends of justice, the court found that the appellant deliberately attempted to delay
and sabotage the forensic examination of the Nissan X-Trail and preservation of
DNA data which resulted in his arrest. Ultimately the appellant was correctly
convicted on the basis of strong circumstantial evidence comprising of cell phone
record evidence, the tracker report of the Nissan X -Trail, CCTV video footage of the
vehicle, witness evidence, forensic evidence as we ll as the evidence of the
appellant.
[34] With regard to sentence, Counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the
trial court failed to properly evaluate the appellant ’s personal circumstance s,
overemphasised the interests of the community, and imposed a life sentence that is
harsh, severe and induces a sense of shock. Counsel contended further that the
court had failed to have due regard to the appellant’s limited participation in the
commission of the offences, as well as the fact that the appellant was a first offender
susceptible to rehabilitation.
[35] The over-arching ground of appeal is that the court had failed to give sufficient
weight to factors that constituted substantial and compelling circumstances which
justify the imposition of a sentence lesser than life imprisonment for murder. Counsel
on behalf of the State submitted that the court considered all the relevant
circumstances of the case, that the sentence is neither severe nor shockingly
inappropriate, and that the sentence imposed should be confirmed.
[36] It is trite that sentencing lies in the discretion of the trial court. 1 The essential
enquiry in an appeal against sentence is not whether the sentence was right or
wrong, but whether the court in imposing it exercised its discretion properly and
judicially, a mere misdirection is not by itself sufficient to entitle the Appeal Court to
interfere with the sentence; it must be of such a nature, degree, or seriousness that it
shows, directly or inferentially that the court did not exercise its discretion at all or
exercised it improperly or unreasonably. Such a misdirection is usually and
conveniently termed one that vitiates the Court’s discretion. 2 Consequently, this
court cannot interfere merely because it might have imposed a lighter sentence than
1 Nkabinde and Others v S [2017] ZASCA 75; 2017 (2) SACR 431 (SCA) at para 51.
2 S v Pillay 1977 (4) SA 531 (A) at 535 E-F.
the trial court.3
[37] In S v RO and Another4 the court stated that:
‘Sentencing is about achieving the right balance (or, in more high -flown terms,
proportionality). The elements at play are the crime, the offender and the
interests of society or, with different nuance, prevention, retribution, reformation
and deterrence . I nvariably there are overlaps that render the process
unscientific; even a proper exercise of the judicial function allows reasonable
people to arrive at different conclusions.’
[38] In terms of the provisions of section 51 of Act 105 of 1997, premeditated
murder or murder in pursuit of a common purpose carries a mandatory sentence of
life imprisonment or a lesser sentence in terms of section 51 (3) if substantial and
compelling circumstances are proved by evidence. The specified minimum
sentences are not to be departed from lightly and for flimsy reasons. 5 The court must
consider the traditional mitigating and aggravating factors cumulatively and as part of
determining whether the minimum prescribed sentence is so disproportionate to the
sentence that would be appropriate to the sentence , to the extent that an injustice
would be done by imposing that sentence. Put differently, that the prescribed
sentence would be disproportionate to the crime, the criminal and the legitimate
needs of society.
[39] The trial court gave a very detailed j udgment dealing with all aspects relating
to sentence in the matter. The personal circumstances of the appellant were
3 S v Obisi 2005 (2) SACR 350 (W) para 8, S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (A) at 857 D-E; S v De Oliveira 1993
(2) SACR 59 (A) at 667.
4 S v RO and Another 2010 (2) SACR 248 (SCA) at para 30.
5 S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA).
assessed and taken account of , as well as the factors relating to the crime and the
effect of the crime on the victims. However, in cases of serious crime the personal
circumstances of the offender, by themselves, will necessarily recede into the
background6.
[40] The trial court went through a detailed analysis of the circumstances
surrounding the commission of the offences . The court mentioned that the appellant
was in a position of tru st as a friend of the deceased and abused that trust by
facilitating easy access to the deceased. There are factual findings made by the
court that there must have been a substantial amount of plan ning and involvement in
luring the deceased away from his home to a place where he was going to be held
against his will and killed.
[41] The court set out the cruel manner in which the crimes were committed. The
appellant had ample opportunity to reflect but consciously decided to continue to act
in concert with others to facilitate the death of a friend who affectionately called him
“Master”. The appellant attempted to justify his conduct on a fabricated version
suggesting that he feared for his life . The photos on record depict the serious and
gruesome injuries suffered by the deceased. The deceased died a painful and
merciless death. Having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the interests of
society, there can be no doubt that the offence committed by the appellant is
extremely serious.
6 S v Vilakazi 2012 (6) SA 353 (SCA) para 58.
[42] Our Courts have considered the maximum penalty for cases where there is
reliance on common purpose. 7 The aggravating features of the crime are
overwhelming. In my view the mitigating factors in the appellant’s favour are wholly
outweighed by the nature of the crimes and the interests of society justifying the
strictest sanction possible which is a proportio nate and suitable punishment
considering the legislative framework. I am satisfied that cumulatively, the factors
enumerated by the appellant’s Counsel do not amount to convincing reasons for
departure from the discretionary minimum sentences prescribed.
[43] I am accordingly satisfied that the trial court properly and judicially applied its
mind to the guidance articulated in S v Malgas (supra) regarding the existence of
substantial and compelling circumstances and correctly concluded that there were
no such circumstances in respect of the murder charge . For all the above reasons, it
is my view that the trial court did not misdirect itself . There is, therefore, no reason
for this court to interfere with the sentences imposed. The courts have a duty to
impose appropriate sentences for these crimes to satisfy the objectives of retribution
and deterrence in sentencing to deter those with like-minded intent.
[44] In the result, I make the following order:
The appeal against sentence is dismissed. The sentence of life imprisonment
is confirmed.
_______________________________________
DEPUTY JUDGE PRESIDENT GOLIATH
7 S v Monye 2017 (1) SACR 329 (SCA) at para 19 and 21; S v Mlumbi (70/1990) [1990] ZASCA 153 (29
November 1990); S v Nduwana 2015 (JBR) 0751; (CC 26/ 2014) [2015] ZAECPEHC 22 (17 April 2015).
Thulare, J (concurring).
_______________________________________
D. THULARE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Pangarker, J (concurring).
_______________________________________
M. PANGARKER
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
For appellant: Ms Susanna Kuun
Instructed by: Legal Aid SA
For respondent: Adv Lenro Badenhorst
Instructed by: Director of Public Prosecutions