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
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
DATE 20 February 2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
STATE
and
J[...] N[...]
SENTENCE
MORE AJ:
[1] The accused has been found guilty of murder, read with the provisions of
Section 51(1), read with Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act
105 of 1997 . On 28 January 2023, he murdered his wife, M[...] T[...] N[...] . He has
also been found guilty of robbery with aggravating circumstances.
[2] The accused is 55 years old and was married to the deceased. They have
three children and two grandchildren. He was doing piece jobs at the time of his
arrest, and he has previous convictions. He has been in custody since 30 January
2
2023. It is true that he has been convicted of very serious offences. At the time
before his arrest, he was able to support his family, but now he does not know who is
supporting his family.
[3] He indicated that he regretted that about what he had done and asked the
Court to show mercy and that he is remorseful about it.
[4] It is trite that when the Court decides on the appropriate sentence, all factors
should be given due weight. Punishment must fit the criminal act as well as the
crime, be fair to society, and be blended with a measure of mercy. When sentencing
an accused, the Court is required to consider the four objectives of punishment,
namely deterrence, prevention, rehabilitation and retribution.
[5] This has been well indicated in the well-known case of S v Zinn,1 these factors
are the:
a) Personal circumstances of the accused, including his character, conduct in life
and personally and his personality and everything that influenced the
commission of the offence.
b) The nature and the seriousness of the offence committed; and
c) The interests of the community including the necessity for a level of uniformity
in sentencing.
[6] In S v van Loggerenberg ,2 Willis J held that a sentence has five important
functions:
“It must act as a general deterrent, in other words, it must deter other members of the
community from committing such act or thinking that the price of wrongdoing is
worthwhile. It must act as a specific deterrent, in other words, it must deter the
individual from being tempted to act in such a manner ever again. It must enable the
possibility of correction unless this is very clearly not likely. It must be protective of
the society, in other words, society must be protected from those who do it harm. It
must serve society's desire for retribution, in other words society's outrage at serious
wrongdoing must be placated.”
[7] The state contended that the accused displayed no remorse. His post -murder
[7] The state contended that the accused displayed no remorse. His post -murder
behaviour should also be taken into account when one assesses whether or not the
accused is remorseful.
1 S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A).
2 S v van Loggerenberg 2012 (1) SACR 462 (GSJ) at para 6.
3
[8] In S v Matyityi ,3 it was held that there is moreover, a chasm between regret
and remorse. Many accused persons might well regret their conduct but that does
not, with our more, translate to genuine remorse. Remorse is a gnawing pain of
conscience for the plight of another.
[9] This genuine contrition can only come from an appreciation and
acknowledgement of the extent of one's error. Whether the offender is sincerely
remorseful and not simply feeling sorry for himself or herself at having been caught is
a factual question.
[10] It is to the surrounding actions of the accused rather, rather than what he says
in court that one should rather look at. In order for the remorse to be a valid
consideration the pertinence must be sincere and the accused must take the Court
fully into his or her confidence. Until and unless that happens, the genuineness of the
contrition alleged to exist cannot be determined, after all before a court can find that
an accused person is genuinely remorseful, it needs to have a proper appreciation of
inter alia what motivated the accused to commit the deed, what has since provoked
his or her change of heart and whether he or she does indeed have a true
appreciation of the consequences of those actions.
[11] Taking into account the type of offences he has been convicted of, the
provisions of section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997, the minimum sentence is applicable.
[12] Judicial officers are enjoined to approach sentence with a humane and
compassionate understanding of the human faculties. In S v Rabie,4 Corbit JA as he
then was, remarked as follows:
"A judicial officer should not approach punishment in the spirit of anger because being
human that will make it difficult for him to achieve that delicate balance between the
crime, the criminal and the interests of the society, which his task and the objects of
punishment demand of him nor should he strive after severity, no. On the other hand,
punishment demand of him nor should he strive after severity, no. On the other hand,
surrender to misplaced pity. While not flinching from the firmness where firmness is
called for, he should approach his task with a humane and compassionate understand
of human frailties and pressure of the society which contribute to criminality."
[13] It is in the context of this attitude of mind that I see mercy as an element in the
determination of the appropriate punishment in the light of all the circumstances of
the particular case.
3 S v Matyityi [2010] 2 All SA 424 (SCA) at para 13.
4 In S v Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (A) at para 866.
4
[14] The deceased in this matter died a very violent, painful and brutal death.
When one looks at the pictures of the photo album you can see that the brutality
which was applied on her. She was hit many times on the head with a broomstick,
thereafter hit with a spade to a point that the injuries she sustained, even the
accused was unable to identify her when the photo album was handed to him.
[15] The actions of the accused were callous, heartless and cold. This shows
heartlessness and brutality on the part of the accused. The deceased was a
defenceless woman who, when attacked, ran to the bedroom of her seven -year-old
grandson K[...], and it is very sad that K[...] had to witness such brutality at his tender
age.
[16] The deceased was taking care of her children and her grandchildren; the
accused deprived her children of a mother and the grandchildren of their
grandmother.
[17] In this country gender -based violence is very prevalent, the statistics are
growing every day about the murder of intimate partners. The constitution gives
everyone a right to life, but women and children are no longer safe in this country.
Women and children are not safe in their own homes. Women are killed every day
by their partners who, at some stage told them I love you; I want you to be my wife,
but a day will come when they kill them brutally. The courts need to protect them.
[18] The legislature realised that the crime is out of control in South Africa and
passed the Minimum Sentence Act in 1997. The aim was to try to curb the spiralling
offences it mentioned in the Act.
[19] As stated in S v Makhadu ,5 it was stated that despite all these valiant efforts
by government, we are not winning the war against these crimes. In S v Malgas ,6
the court held that the prescribed minimum sentence must be imposed unless
substantial and compelling circumstances justify a lesser sentence. The framework
was designed to ensure that serious offences are punished with severity they
was designed to ensure that serious offences are punished with severity they
warrant while still allowing for judicial discretion in appropriate cases.
[20] In S v Kruger ,7 Shongwe JA with Harems AP and Plaskett AJA concurring,
confirmed that punishing a convicted person should not be likened to revenge, it
5 S v Makatu 2014 (2) SACR 539 (SCA) at para 31.
6 S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA) at para 3(a).
7 S v Kruger 2012 (1) SACR 369 (SCA) at para 11.
5
must have all the elements of and purposes of punishment, prevention, retribution,
individual and general deterrence and rehabilitation.
[21] The Court has to evaluate all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances to
decide whether substantial and compelling circumstances exist in this matter to
justify the departure from the prescribed minimum sentence.
[22] The Court must be alive to the fact that the legislature has ordained a
particular sentence for the offences committed by the accused. In line with S v
Matyityi at paragraph 23, the Supreme Court Appeal emphasised that the prescribed
minimum sentences should not be departed from lightly or for flimsy reasons. Life
imprisonment is the ultimate penalty that the courts can impose and should not be
imposed, departed from lightly.
[23] The question is whether the personal circumstances and other circumstances,
substantial and compelling circumstances of the accused amount to such.
[24] It was held in S v Vilakazi,8 that it is clear from the terms in which the test was
framed in Malgas and endorsed in D odo that it is incumbent upon the court in every
case, before it imposes a prescribed minimum sentence, to assess, upon a
consideration of all the circumstances of a particular case, whether the prescribed
minimum sentence is indeed proportionate into that particular offence.
[25] The Constitutional Court made it clear that what is meant by the offence in the
context, and that is the sense in which I will use the term throughout this judgment
unless the context indicates otherwise, consists of all the factors relevant to the
nature and seriousness of the criminal act in itself as well as all the relevant personal
and other circumstances relating to the offence, which could have a bearing on the
seriousness of the offence and the culpability of the offender. If a Court is indeed
satisfied that a lesser sentence is called for in a particular case, this justifying a
satisfied that a lesser sentence is called for in a particular case, this justifying a
departure from the prescribed sentence then it hardly needs saying that the Court is
bound to impose that lesser sentence.
[26] That was also made clear in Malgas, which said that the relevant provisions in
the Act vests the sentencing court with the power indeed, the obligation to consider
whether the particular circumstances of the case require a different sentence to be
imposed and a different sentence must be imposed if the Court is satisfied that
substantial and compelling circumstances which justify it.
8 S v Vilakazi [2008] 4 All SA 396 (SCA) at para 15.
6
[27] Given the high level of violent crimes in this country as stated above,
emphasis must be placed on retribution and deterrence. In Kekana v S9:
"Domestic violence has become a scourge in our society and should not be treated
lightly, it has to be deplored and also 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
respect a negation of many of their fundamental rights such as equality, human dignity
and bodily integrity."
[28] This was well articulated in S v Chapman,10 when this court said the following:
"Women in this country have the legitimate right to walk peacefully on the street, to
enjoy their shopping and their entertainment, to go and come from work and to enjoy
the peace and tranquillity of their homes without the fear of apprehension and the
insecurity which constantly diminishes the quality and enjoyment of their lives."
[29] The accused person, when he killed the deceased, his wife, did not show that
he has regard to human life. For a partner to be so heartless and coldblooded
towards his wife of so many years, more than 30 years to be exact, is scary. It is
therefore the duty of the courts to protect citizens this country and the society at
large, from the scourge of these violent offences and to send a clear message that
this behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
[30] Society has a legitimate expectation that criminal activities as displayed by the
accused should be punished. After the accused testified in mitigation and the state
handed the victim impact statement, both counsels addressed the Court.
[31] Both counsels addressed the Court in mitigation and in aggravation of
sentence. On behalf of the accused, the counsel on behalf of the accused, he
acknowledged that the accused has previous convictions and that the last one was
acknowledged that the accused has previous convictions and that the last one was
committed back in 2008. He has a number of previous convictions and during cross -
examination in mitigation it was put to him that why is he committing these offences
and his response was that he was influenced by his friends at the time.
[32] Then the question will be if then he was influenced by the friends, the one, the
present offence where he has been committed, who was influencing him to commit
such. The counsel on behalf of the accused informed the Court that there are
substantial and compelling circumstances. In short, he mentioned them as follows.
9 S v Kekana [2014] ZASCA 158 at para 20.
10 S v Chapman [1997] (3) SA 341 (SCA) at para 5.
7
[33] That the accused made some incrimination admissions he consumed liquor
so this diminished his blameworthiness. The history of violence between the
accused and the deceased, the period he spent in custody and also that the incident
happened in the spur of the moment. It was further argued that the Court should
consider the above and deviate from the prescribed minimum sentence.
[34] The state also addressed the Court and asked the Court to sentence the
accused to life imprisonment and 15 years respectively. The state also handed in a
victim impact statement by the daughter of the accused and the deceased and it was
marked EXHIBIT H and it was handed in by consent.
[35] In the statement the victim C[...] M[...] detailed how her life has changed since
the passing of her mother. She indicated that her mother was a Godfearing woman
who was taking care of her the other siblings and the grandchildren. She indicated
that since her mother is no longer available, she has now taken over the household
responsibilities as she is the only one with a stable employment. She indicated that
this has negatively affected all of them especially his brother, to a point that he
started drinking heavily and now he is doing drugs.
[36] The incident, according to her, it is also affecting her personal relationships.
She further said that that the passing of her mother gave her nothing but grief and
trauma.
[37] The state indicated that there was no remorse on the part of the accused as
the accused did not take the Court into confidence because even after the first blow
he did not stop. When the deceased was running away from the accused, he
followed her. The deceased ran to K[...]'s room and later to the bathroom, calling for
help, but the accused continued with hitting her with the broomstick and later a
spade. This the state informed the Court that shows that there was no remorse at
all.
[38] The following are aggravating circumstances. The nature and the
all.
[38] The following are aggravating circumstances. The nature and the
gruesomeness of the injuries, the fact that the accused left after the incident and
locked the doors and the gate, which shows that he wanted the deceased to die
without getting help. He did not report the matter to the police or call an ambulance
or to anyone who might be of assistance.
[39] Even though he initially pleaded guilty, that does not show remorse because
he is not completely honest with the Court. He took the phones belonging to K[...]
and the deceased after when he left, meaning that he did not want K[...] or anyone to
8
call for help. By committing an offence in front of a 7 -year-old K[...], by violating the
protection order which was in place, killing her like an animal, the impact on the
victims.
[40] As already indicated in S v Matyityi,11 a plea of guilty is not a sign of remove
per se, it may demonstrate a sign of feeling pity for oneself. The Court is of the view
that the aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating circumstances.
[41] All the evidence proved that the accused murdered the deceased gruesomely.
To show her vulnerability she was kneeling in front of the deceased, according to
Keleso, and never fought back.
[42] Even the family intervention which was arranged by his daughter did not
assist. Even the protection order did not stop him from committing this offence. It is
clear that the accused is not the kind to be deterred by the law as one looks at his
long history of his previous convictions. Although the previous convictions are old
but they show the kind of person he is.
[43] He is definitely the kind of person who needs to be removed from the society
as the society needs to be protected from someone like him. The fact that he was
under the influence of alcohol cannot be found to be a substantial and compelling
circumstance.
[44] This is clearly set out in in the case of Director of Public Prosecutions
Grahamstown v TM,12 read with S v Qamata13 where the Court stated as follows:
"An appropriate sentence actually means a sentence in accordance with the
blameworthiness of every individual offender. The punitive sanction should be
proportionate in severity to the degree of blameworthiness or the seriousness of the
conduct."
[45] In S v Vilakazi,14 Nugent JA said that:
"In cases of serious crime such as this, the personal circumstances of the offenders by
themselves will necessarily recede in the background once it becomes clear that the
crime is deserving of a substantial period of imprisonment."
crime is deserving of a substantial period of imprisonment."
[46] Having considered all the relevant facts, submissions by counsel and
applicable legal principles, the Court finds that there are no substantial and
compelling circumstances to justify a lesser sentence in this matter. The manner in
11 S v Matyityi [2010] 2 All SA 424 (SCA) at para 13.
12 Director of Public Prosecutions Grahamstown v TM [2020] ZASCA 5.
13 S v Qamata 1997 (1) SACR 479 at para (E) 483a.
14 S v Vilakazi [2008] 4 All SA 396 (SCA) at para 58.
9
which the deceased was killed was brutal and shows disregard to human life in the
presence of a 7-year-old, which will create a lifelong trauma for the little one.
[47] The Court looked very closely at his personal circumstances and all the other
factors cumulatively but did not find any substantial and compelling circumstances.
In the result the Court finds the following against the accused:
[48] Murder, on the count of murder, read with the provisions of Section 51(1) of
the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 you are sentenced to life
imprisonment.
[49] On the count of robbery with aggravating circumstances as intended in
section 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, read with the provisions of
section 51(2) and Part 2 of the Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105
1997, you are sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
[50] The accused is also declared unfit to possess a firearm in terms of Section
103(1) of the Firearms Control Act 60 of 2000.
_______________________
MORE AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
10
Date of Judgment : 20 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
11