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 Number: CC55/23
In the matter between:
In the matter between:
STATE
and
J[...] N[...]
JUDGMENT
MORE AJ:
[1] The accused, Mr. J[...] N[...], has been charged with three counts, namely :
count 1, murder; count 2, attempted murder; and count 3 , robbery with aggravating
circumstances.
a. Count 1 reads as follows:
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED:
13 February 2026 _____________________
DATE SIGNATURE
“In that, upon or about 28 January 2023, at or near 8[...] J[...]-M[...] Street,
Extension 6, Langaville, Tsakane, in the district of Gauteng, the accused did
unlawfully and intentionally kil l an adult female, M[...] T[...] N[...], an adult
female.”
b. Count 2 reads as follows:
“In that, upon or about 28 January 2023, and at or near 8[...] J[...]-M[...] Street,
Extension 6, Langaville, Tsakane, in the district of Gauteng, the accused did
unlawfully and intentionally attempt to kill K[...] J[...] M[...] (seven years old) by
hitting him with a shovel and causing him injury.”
c. Count 3:
“In that, upon or about 28 January 2023, at or near 8[...] J[...]-M[...] Street,
Extension 6, Langaville, Tsakane, in the district of Gauteng, the accused did
unlawfully and intentionally assault M[...] T[...] N[...], the deceased, and K[...] J[...]
M[...], and with force take the following items from them, to wit, two cell phones,
their property or the property in their lawful possession. The aggravating
circumstances being the use of a shovel to assault the victim and complainant at
the time of the commission of the offence.”
[2] The State avers that the provisions of section 51(1) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (Criminal Law Act) are applicable, in that the death of
the victim resulted from a physical abuse by the accused who was in a domestic
relationship with the deceased, as provided for in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Act 105
of 1997, as amended by the Criminal and Related Matters Amendment Act 12 of
2021.
[3] Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Act,1 reads as follows:
“Murder when the death of the victim resulted from the physical abuse or sexual
abuse as contemplated in Paragraphs A and B of the Definition of Domestic
Violence in section 1 of the Domestic Violence Act 1998, Act 116 of 1998, by the
accused who is or was in a domestic relationship, as defined in section 1 of the
Act, with the victim.”
1 105 of 1997.
[4] The accused is represented by Advocate Ma tshego, and the State is
represented by Advocate Sivhidzho. After the charges were put to the accused, the
accused pleaded as follows: On count 1, pleaded guilty ; Count 2, not guilty ; and
count 3, guilty.
[5] Advocate Matshego read into the record and handed in a statement in terms
of section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (Criminal Procedure Act)2
pertaining to the plea on count 1, the murder charge, and then read section 112(2)
statement into the record and the court did not accept t he contents thereof, and
entered a plea of not guilty in terms of section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
[6] Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Act was explained to the accused and
incorporated in his section 112(2) statement of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the
accused confirmed the contents. The State then, as part of the case, sought
admissions to be made in terms of section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The
following admissions were handed in by consent.
EXHIBIT “A”, section 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act made by the accused.
EXHIBIT “B”, the admissions.
EXHIBIT “C”, post-mortem.
EXHIBIT “D”, photo album.
EXHIBIT “E”, protection order.
EXHIBIT “F”, a report by Tendayi Munadzi.
[7] The post -mortem and its contents, and its facts and findings, were admitted
into the record as EXHIBIT “C”. The post-mortem was conducted by Dr. Collen Oupa
Morare. The chief post -mortem findings are found on page 2, and they read as
follows: Multiple incised wounds, scalp and face. Impaled wound left hand. Open
fracture distal 1/3, right radium; Fracture maxilla and mandible (Le -Forte fracture);
Diffuse sub-arachnoid hemorrhage; and the cause of death was the multiple incising
force injuries as noted in the post-mortem.
2 Act 51 of 1977.
[8] The State then called the follo wing witnesses. Sicelo Brian Vilakazi, K[...], and
C[...] M[...] M[...].
Summary of the evidence
Witness 1, Sicelo Brian Vilakazi
[9] He is a sergeant in the South African Police Services Station at Tsakane. He
has 17 years of experience and is attached to the visible policing. His duties entail
attending to complaints and patrolling. He told the court that on 29 January 2023, he
reported for duty at about 06:00 in the morning, and at 07:00, he received a
complaint of murder. He was given the address 3[...] J[...]-M[...] Street.
[10] When he approached the address, he saw a small group of people standing
outside the address. He was then informed that the injured person was inside the
premises. He was let inside by two ladies, one being M[...], who is residin g at the
address. She is also the daughter of the deceased. He was pointed a lifeless body,
which was already covered with a duvet in the bathroom.
[11] He noticed that there was blood on the passage, halls, two bedrooms, and
also noticed blood on the bed, t he fitted sheet, and even on the curtains. He also
indicated that the suspect was not at the scene, and it was alleged that he had fled
the scene. There was no cross-examination on this witness.
[12] It was after this witness that the State formally brought an application that the
section 112(2) statement be admitted in terms of section 220 of the Criminal
Procedure Act. There was no objection from the defence, and it was noted EXHIBIT
“A”. It kept its original numbering. The State then brought an a pplication in terms of
section 153 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The State indicated that the child witness,
K[...], is now 12 years old. The State also indicated that at the time of the incident,
he was just 7 years old. The defence did not have an ob jection. As a result, the
court ordered that the proceedings would be held in camera in terms of section 153
of the Criminal Procedure Act.
of the Criminal Procedure Act.
[13] The State then brought another application in terms of section 170A of the
Criminal Procedure Act, where the reques t was made that the child witness testify
with the assistance of an intermediary. The State also stated that the now 12 -year-
old witness, K[...] M[...], was assessed at the Kids Clinic by a social worker Ms
Tendai Monatsi and compiled a report which was handed in as EXHIBIT “F”.
[14] The report recommended that the testimony of K[...] be held in camera and
that a closed -circuit television system be used. It also indicated that he should not
testify in open court. He must not testify in open court, as tha t might cause undue
mental strain on him. There was no objection from the defence Counsel. It was then
ordered that the testimony of K[...] M[...] be held in camera via the CCTV system with
the assistance of an intermediary.
[15] The State then indicated that Geraldine Ngobeni should be appointed by a
court as the intermediary who will be assisting K[...], the child witness. She was then
called, and she placed her qualifications on record. She also indicated that she has
been appointed as an intermedia ry since 2022 and is based in the region of
Ekurhuleni, doing both Regional and High Court matters. She indicated that every
year they get training under the Department of Justice.
[16] She also handed in her competency statement, and it was marked EXHIBIT
“G”. There was no objection that she be appointed from this court. She was then
appointed as the intermediary by the court. Before she could proceed, she was
properly warned and took an oath.
Witness 2, K[...] M[...]
[17] The State then called the second witness, K[...] M[...]. As a child witness, he
was admonished, and the court was satisfied that he could differentiate between
telling the truth and lies. K[...] told the court that he remembers the date of the
incident. That it was in Janua ry 2023, even though he does not remember the exact
date. He indicated that that evening he was in the company of Mma M[...], his
grandmother, or the deceased.
[18] Later that evening, he went to his bedroom to sleep, around 20:00. He
explained to this Hon ourable Court how the house is set up. He informed the court
explained to this Hon ourable Court how the house is set up. He informed the court
that when he went to sleep, the accused was not home yet. He also told the court
that he later heard the deceased screaming and then saw her opening his door and
falling into his room. He said his grandfather was following her in possession of a
broomstick, hitting her on the head. He indicated that when he was hitting her, she
was holding on to his knees, crying.
[19] He further told the court that when she was hit, she was hit many times with
the broomstick on the head, where blood was oozing. He indicated that there was
no stage in which the grandmother fought back, and thereafter, the grandfather went
to the garage to fetch a spade, and the grandmother ran to the bathroom. At this
point, he was taking a video, and the accused took his phone and smashed it on the
ground. He also explained how you move from the house to go to the garage and
come back into the house.
[20] He informed the court that the accused then hit the deceased with the spade
on the head and shoulders, and she sustained open wounds on the head and
shoulders. He indicated to the court that when all this happened, she was seated
and crying. She was not in possession of any weapon.
[21] K[...] told the court that when this was happe ning, he was standing at the
bathroom door. He further indicated that thereafter the deceased took him and put
him in a wardrobe where he spent the night. Later, he realised that the accused took
his cell phone and the deceased's phone in his bag. He to ld the court that he spent
the whole night in the wardrobe until he was rescued by his mother.
[22] When his mother asked him about the deceased, he referred her to the
bathroom to go and see for herself. At that time, h is mother was in the company of
one of their neighbours, Mpho.
[23] In cross-examination, he was asked about who slept in which bedroom, and
he responded. He also indicated that he does not know that the accused left
between 2022 and 2023. He informed the court that before 28 January 2023, there
was a time when they would fight, and he does not remember when exactly.
[24] He indicated to the court that when the accused arrived on 28 January, he did
not see him. He also indicated that the grandfather, when he came back home, was
not see him. He also indicated that the grandfather, when he came back home, was
drunk. He told the court that he did not hear any arguing in the house; the first thing
that he heard was when his grandmother, the deceased, started screaming. He also
confirmed that he told the police and his mother about what happened to the
deceased. He also indicated to the court that he did not see the accused when he
came back.
Witness 3, C[...] M[...] M[...]
[25] The State then called witness number 3, C[...] M[...] M[...]. She informed the
court that both the deceased and the accused are her parents. She said that on the
night of 28 January 2023, she was at work as she was doing a night shift and only
came back in the morning. She was first surprised when she reached the gate, and
it was still locked, as her mother and K[...] would always unlock the gate for her.
[26] After breaking the lock of the gate and the one at the door, she managed to
access the house. She confirmed that she found K[...] in the wardrobe, and he is the
one who informed her that her mother was in the bathroom. She also confirmed the
injuries and that the house was full of blood.
[27] According to her, she shouted to the neighbours to come, and the neighbours
came. She also confirmed that she spoke to K[...] at some point, and he told her
everything that happened. She indicated that it was not the first time that the
accused assaulted the deceased, as they were used to fighting. She said that there
was a warrant of arrest dated around 2021 and 2022 against the accused. She also
confirmed that she knew about the protection order issued against the accused.
[28] During cross-examination, she confirmed that her parents would usually fight.
She even, at some stage, called the elders to a meeting to come and try to
intervene. According to her, their relationship was toxic. She also told the cour t that
the accused left their home in 2021 and came back in 2022. It was after they had
fought that her mother went to the police station. She also explained how she later
saw that he was back at home in 2022 but did not know how or what happened. The
State then closed the case.
[29] The defence Counsel indicated that they would bring an application in terms
[29] The defence Counsel indicated that they would bring an application in terms
of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The Counsel on behalf of the accused
indicated to the court tha t he is applying for the discharge of the accused in respect
of count 2, the attempted murder of K[...] M[...]. He submitted that there was no
evidence presented by the State in respect of this count, and that there is no medical
proof that K[...] was hit with a spade.
[30] The State also addressed the court and acknowledged that, indeed, no
evidence was led in respect of count 2. The State alluded to the fact that K[...] never
said anything about being hit with a spade when he testified. Having listene d to the
submissions made by both counsel and having applied my mind, the accused was
then discharged in terms of section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act in respect of
count 2.
[31] The defence Counsel then called the accused to testify. The accused
informed the court that on 28 January 2023, he was at Tsakane, went to drink some
alcohol, and watch a soccer match. He was drinking Castle Lager and whiskey. He
indicated that he was there from around 14:00 until 21:00, when he decided to go
home.
[32] He confir med that he stays with his wife and his children, but when he got
home, the lights were switched off, and there was no one at home, so he decided to
go and sleep. He told the court that when he woke up, he was hit with a broomstick
on his head by the dece ased. He told the court that he had been married to the
deceased since the 2000s.
[33] He also confirmed that there was a protection order that was issued against
him in 2021. That is why he left home. He also further informed the court that,
indeed, there were previous incidents of violence between him and the deceased.
He said that he was later accepted back into the house in 2022 and that he and the
deceased slept together in the same room until 16 December, when they started
fighting again.
[34] He told t he court that according to him, the reason for their fight on
16 December was that they drank his whiskey, and a fight ensued, and he was hit
with a bone cup on the head. There was a lot of blood, and he ended up at
Pholosong Hospital and was stitched up. He also informed the court that he
Pholosong Hospital and was stitched up. He also informed the court that he
sustained injuries on 28 January 2023. He did not provide the court with any
medical proof of any sort.
[35] According to him, the deceased was the aggressor on the night in question.
He admitted that even though the dec eased was the aggressor, he exceeded the
bounds of self -defence, and that he took the two cell phones because they were
bought by him when he left.
[36] He gave quite different reasons why he took the cell phones, other than the
fact that they were bought by him, because he told the court that he took them
because he was afraid that when the community arrive, they might use them to
phone the police. So, he said he did not want them to call, as he was on his way to
the police station, and he further confirmed that both cell phones, as at the time
when he took them, were used by both the deceased and K[...].
[37] During cross -examination, he said that on the night of the incident, he
reached the police station but did not enter because there were community members
present there. He also said that he took the cell phones so that they could not track
him. He confirmed that previously, a case of malicious damage to property was
opened, but it was withdrawn. That was back in 2013. He also explained how he
was arrested, and he also told the court that after the incident, he never personally
went into the police station to report what he had done.
[38] When he was shown the pictures of his wife, he could not recognise her in the
photo album. What he told the court when he was shown photos 61 to 66 was that
he could not identify her, but in photo 67, at least he was able to identify her because
he could see that those were her legs. He further acknowledged that he could not
identify her in the pictures 61 to 66 because of the injuries she sustained.
[39] He confirmed that after the incident on the 28 th, he left and locked the house.
He said that he only hit her with the back of the spade twice.
Evaluation of the Evidence
[40] It is a trite principle that the State must prove the guilt of the accused person
[40] It is a trite principle that the State must prove the guilt of the accused person
beyond a reasonable doubt. In S v Van Der Meyden ,3 the test was set out as
follows.
3 S v Van Der Meyden 1999 (1) SACR 447 (W) at para 448F-G.
“The onus of proof in a criminal case is discharged by the State if the evidence
establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The corollary is that he
is entitled to be acquitted if it is reasonably possible that he might be innocent.”
[41] However, in S v Phallo,4 Olivier JA said that:
“There is no obligation upon the State to close every avenue of escape which may be
said to be open to an accused. It is sufficient for the State to produce evidence by
means of which such a high degree of probability is raised that the ordinary reasonable
man, after mature consideration, comes to the conclusion that there exists no
reasonable doubt that an accused has committed the crime charged. He must, in other
words, be morally certain of the guilt of the accused. An accused's claim to the benefit
of a doubt, when it may be said to exist, must not be derived from speculation, but
must rest upon a reasonable and solid foundation created either by positive evidence
or gathered from reasonable inferences, which are not in conflict with, or outweighed
by, the proved facts of the case.”
[42] Everyone in this country has a right to life. This is the right entrenched in
section 11 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.
Murder is regarded as a serious offence that falls within t he categories of Act 105 of
1997.
[43] Our courts and society consider human life as being precious, and more
particularly in the constitutional dispensation such as ours, where the right to life is
guaranteed by the constitution. Murder not only ends the li fe of a loved family
member, but it leaves much hardship and pain for the remaining family members,
which might not heal.
[44] In this matter, the deceased and the accused were husband and wife. Which
means that the death of the deceased resulted from a gender -based violence
incident. In S v Kekana,5 Mathopo AJA (as he then was) said:
“Domestic violence has become scourge in our society and should not be healed
“Domestic violence has become scourge in our society and should not be healed
lightly. It has to be deplored and severely punished. Hardly a day passes without a
report in the media of a woman, or a child being beaten, raped or even killed in this
country. Many women and children live in constant fear for their lives. This is in some
4 S v Phallo and Others 1999 (2) SACR 558 (SCA) at para 10.
5 S v Kekana [2014] ZASCA 158 at para 20.
respects a negation of many of their fundamental rights as equality, human dignity
and bodily integrity.”
[45] The witness K[...] was just seven years old when this incident unfolded. After
coming to this court to explain what he saw and experienced on the day, it shows
that he is a very intelligent child who was able to remember precisely what he
observed on the day in question. Nowhere in his evidence did he show that he was
struggling to remember the events of that fateful night.
[46] The way he narrated to this Honourable Court, he was not struggling at all.
He was a trustworthy witness. Although he could not remember the actual date of
the incident, he was able to provide a very detailed account of the events.
[47] In terms of section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is competent for a
court to convict on the evidence of a single witness. However, t he evidence of a
single witness must be clear and satisfactory in every material respect. This does
not mean that the evidence must be flawless and beyond criticism. S v Saul
(Saul),6 it was held that:
“There is no rule of thumb test or formula to apply when it comes to a consideration of
the single witness . . . The trial Judge will weigh the evidence, will consider its merits
and demerits and, having done so, will decide whether it is trustworthy and whether,
despite the fact that there are shortcoming s or defects or contradictions in the
testimony, he is satisfied that the truth has been told. The cautionary rule referred to by
De Villiers JP in 1932 may be a guide to a right decision but it does not mean “that the
appeal must succeed if any criticism, however slender, of the witnesses’ evidence
were well founded” . . . It has been said more than once that the exercise of caution
must not be allowed to displace the exercise of common sense.”
[48] It is common cause that K[...] was a single witness and a chi ld. For some
years, the evidence of a child witness, particularly a single witness, was treated with
years, the evidence of a child witness, particularly a single witness, was treated with
caution. This was because it was stated that a child witness could be manipulated to
falsely implicate a particular person as a perpetrator, thereby subst ituting the
accused person for a real perpetrator.
6 S v Saul 1981 (3) SA 172 (A) at para 180E-G.
[49] In Woji v Santam Insurance Co Ltd (Woji)7, it was stated that to ensure that
the evidence of a child can be relied upon, a court must be satisfied that the
evidence is trustworthy. The court noted factors that must be taken into account to
come to a conclusion that the evidence is trustworthy. In this regard, the court held
as follows:
“Trustworthiness . . . depends on factors such as the child’s power of observation, his
power of recollection, and his power of narration on the specific matter to be testified.
In each instance the capacity of the particular child has to be investigated. His capacity
of observation will depend on whether he appears “intelligent enough to observe”.
[50] Whether he has the capacity of recollection will depend again on whether he
has sufficient years of discretion “to remember what occurs” while the capacity of
narration or communication raises the question whether the child has the “capacity to
understand the questions put, and to frame and express intelligent answers”.
[51] There are other factors as well which the Court will take into account in
assessing the child’ s trustworthiness in the witness -box. Does he appear to be
honest – is there a consciousness of the duty to speak the truth? Then also
“the nature of the evidence given by the child may be of a simple kind and may relate
to a subject -matter clearly within the field of its understanding and interest and the
circumstances may be such as practically to exclude the risks arising from
suggestibility”.8
[52] At the same time, the danger of believing a child when evidence stands alone
must not be underrated. Applying the principles in Woji and Saul to this case, I find
that K[...]’s evidence is reliable and trustworthy, and it is satisfactory in all material
respects. Despite his age, his evidence was consistent and clear. He was able to
respond to questions appropriately.
[53] Women and children are very vulnerable individuals in society. They need to
[53] Women and children are very vulnerable individuals in society. They need to
be protected at all costs and be treated with dignity. What women are experiencing
is very worrying, like in this case, where the deceased was killed by her husband of
7 Woji v Santam Insurance Co Ltd [1980] ZASCA 134; 1981 (1) SA 1020 (A) at para 1028B-D.
8 Woji v Santam Insurance Co Ltd [1980] ZASCA 134; 1981 (1) SA 1020 (A) at para 1028B-D.
more than 30 years. The father of his children, and even worse, in front of her
seven-year-old grandson.
[54] GBV is indeed a serious threat in this country. It is indeed a pandemic, a
disease that needs to be cured. The accused initially pleaded guilty to t he count of
murder, acknowledging that he is the one who caused the injuries to the deceased
and ultimately her death. Even though in his section 112 statement, he shows that
he pleaded self-defence.
[55] The only question to answer is whether the accused shou ld be convicted in
terms of the provisions of section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997, as provided for in Part 1
of Schedule 2 of the Act.
[56] The love relationship between the deceased and the accused was a very
complicated one. For the longest time, they had dom estic disputes that resulted in
the deceased obtaining a protection order in terms of the Domestic Violence Act 116
of 1998. The one presented to this Honourable Court was issued on 18 May 2021,
by a Magistrate in the Tsakane Magistrate Court, and the same was served
personally on the accused. Amongst other reasons why she applied for the
protection order was because she wanted help from the courts, because she was
afraid that the accused would kill her or her children.
[57] It is common cause that the accused is the one who committed these
offences, as that is clearly shown on his evidence, the evidence of his daughter,
M[...], and that of his grandson, K[...]. He also confirmed that he is the one who
inflicted those injuries on the deceased.
[58] The evidence on record is very clear that the deceased was hit with a broom –
first she was hit with a broomstick and later was hit with a spade on her head and
shoulders. Those are the only two objects mentioned that were used on the night in
question. The accused, i n his admission and in court, admitted that indeed he
assaulted the deceased with a broomstick and a spade. In fact, the accused and
assaulted the deceased with a broomstick and a spade. In fact, the accused and
K[...] told the court that, as it unfolded, those were the only objects used. Nothing
else was mentioned.
[59] The minor disc repancy as to when K[...] informed M[...] about the details of
the incident is immaterial. It is neither here nor there, as it does not change anything
that transpired that night.
[60] The accused’s evidence is full of improbabilities and contradictions. The
accused cannot be trusted to some extent. He denies that he is the one who started
the fight, while we have K[...]’s version that the first person he heard on that fateful
night was her grandmother screaming.
[61] He informed the court that on the night in question, he only hit the deceased
twice with the backside of the spade, which is not consistent with the injuries
sustained, as they are incision -type injuries. This also shows that the accused
cannot be trusted.
[62] It is also clear that, after committi ng these offences, he locked the house and
left the deceased and K[...] inside the house, and there is no one else who entered,
until M[...] came back the following morning. The only explanation available is that,
following his acknowledgement of what he did, he is the one who caused these
injuries. No one else entered the house after he left.
[63] It cannot be said that the accused might have forgotten how the incident
unfolded. Because though he portrayed himself as extremely drunk and could not
remember what he was doing in his testimony, he could precisely remember at what
time he went to the drinking place, what he was drinking, what he was doing as in
watching soccer, the type of drinks he was taking, the Castle and the whiskey and
that he went home at around 21:00 in the evening. This shows the memory of a man
who was aware of his surroundings and what he was doing.
Self-defence
[64] The key requirements of self -defence are that there must have been an
unlawful attack and that the attack must be imminent. Also, the defensive act must
be necessary to avert the attack, and it must be proportionate to the attack, and not
be excessively violent.
[65] As stated in S v De Oliveira,9
“A person who acts in private defence acts lawfully, provided his conduct satisfies the
requirements laid down for such a defence and does not exceed its limits. The test for
private defence is objective - would a reasonable man in the position of the accused
have acted in the same way.”
[66] Even if this Honourable Court were to believe that the accused acted in self -
defence, he exceeded the bounds of self -defence in a considerable manner. There
is absolutely no evidence that supports the version of the accused as to whether he
was attacked or not before this Honourable Court; it is what K[...] heard, the scream
of the grandmother. K[...] did not hear any arguments, any of them shouting, or any
sound which will suggest that there was some kind of a fight before he heard the
screaming, or any cry of help from the accused.
[67] Of importance, the accused acknowledged that he exceeded the bounds of
self-defence. He could have avoided assaulting the deceased the way he did.
Instead, he chose to assault the deceased whilst she was in her defenceless state.
He did not just assault her with a broomstick, but also continued with a spade,
causing even more serious injuries. The court agrees with him when he says he
exceeded the bounds of self-defence.
[68] Even though he tried to give some explanations that he disarmed the
deceased with a broomstick, that he sustained some injuries at some point, that is
not substantiated. Also, in his own words, the explanations that he gives about the
phone, what he tells the court about his fear that the community will c all the police
station, all of that does not make sense.
[69] Throughout his mixed explanation, he even alleged that when he left the
house, when he went to the police station, if we were to align that with the evidence
of this case, it was during the night. Also, at some point, when he tried to go back to
the police station, there were sangomas because his wife was also a sangoma. The
the police station, there were sangomas because his wife was also a sangoma. The
court does not take that explanation.
9 S v De Oliveira [1993] 2 All SA 415 (A) at para 14.
[70] On the count of armed robbery, the State alleged that he robbed the cell
phones belo nging to both the deceased and K[...] immediately after brutally killing
the deceased. The explanation he gave during his testimony about the cell phones
is rejected by this Honourable Court. He might have bought the cell phones, but at
the time he took them, they belonged to his wife and his grandchild. I am therefore
satisfied that he robbed them of their cell phones.
[71] What the accused did was cruel. He committed murder and immediately
thereafter took their cell phones. By doing so, this confirms t hat he was committing
another offence. His version is unconvincing and improbable. To some greater
extent, it conflicts with the objective facts proved by the State, as it appears that he
fabricated a version to suit his lies.
[72] Before this court, he appears not to be a credible witness, and his testimony is
not reliable and is rejected.
[73] Having carefully considered the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the
State proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is the one who
caused the injuries to the deceased and caused her death. When he decided to run
away, he took the cell phones belonging to the deceased and K[...]. He then lied
under oath about how everything unfolded, and all this confirms his guilty
conscience.
[74] Accordingly, you are found guilty as charged on two counts: the first count of
murder and the third count of robbery with aggravating circumstances.
___________________________
MORE AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
Date of Judgment : 13 February 2026
Appearances:
For the State: Adv Sivhidzho
Instructed by: Director of Public Prosecutions
For the accused: Adv Matshego
Instructed by: Legal Aid South Africa