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: CC46/2025
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
DATE 26 February 2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
T[...] M[...] Accused
JUDGMENT
MORE AJ
[1] The accused , T[...] M[...] , was charged with two counts. Count one, murder
read with section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 and count
two, mutilation of a human body.
[2] Allegations against her are that on or about 11 November 2023, and at or
near 7[...] M[...] Street, in the district of Actonville , the accused did unlawfully and
intentionally kill O[...] M[...], an adult male , and that on or about 11 November 2023,
2
also at or near 7[...] M[...] Street, in the district of Actonville , the accused did
unlawfully and intentionally violate the body of the deceased person , to wit, O[...]
M[...], by decapitating the body and by cutting and removing other body parts. The
state avers that the provisions of section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997 are applicable in
that the accused was in a domestic relationship with the victim, and the death of the
victim resulted from physical abuse as provided for in Part I of Schedule 2 of Act 105
of 1997 , as amended by the Criminal and Related Matters Amendment Act 12 of
2021. Part I of Schedule 2 of Act 105 of 1997 reads as follows:
“Murder, when-
(g) the death of the victim resulted from physical abuse or sexual abuse , as
contemplated in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition of the ‘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 that Act , with the
victim”.
[3] The accused was initially charged with another accused , Johannes Lebese.
The state withdrew charges against him before the accused pleaded. The accused
confirmed that she understood the charges levelled against her. She also confirmed
that she understood the applicability of the prescribed minimum sentences and the
explanation of the competent verdicts relating to the charges. She then pleaded not
guilty to count one and guilty to count two. The accused was legally represented by
Adv Zuze and the state represented by Adv Jacobs.
[4] Adv Zuze read the plea explanation into the record , and it was marked Exhibit
“A” after the state accepted the plea. The state then sought admissions to be made
in terms of section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977. The state then
handed in Exhibit “B”, the photo album. There was no objection from the defence. As
a result, it was handed in and marked Exhibit “B”. The photo album was compiled by
Nolethando Yvonne Khumalo.
3
Facts of the case
[5] The state called their only witness Dr Tseke Sipho Tladi , who testified, that he
is in the employment of the Gauteng Government Pathology at Springs. He placed
his credentials on record and stated that he has a MBMC hB from MEDUNSA and
qualified in 1988. He has 38 years’ experience as a pathologist . He indicated that he
examined the body of the deceased on 14 November 2023 , and the cause of death
was recorded as multiple injuries with gross mutilation. He explained that “multiple
injuries” means more than one injury that caused the death , and “gross mutilation”
means that the body was cut into pieces or disfigured. He also explained the external
appearances of the body. He marked the stab wounds which had haemorrhage
already black in colour, and deeper as “A” on the photo album on Photo 20.
[6] Dr Tladi further marked two more wounds as “B” and “C”. He further indicated
that others were chop wounds. He also said that the stab wounds did not penetrate
the heart , meaning that the deceased did not die immediately. Meaning the
deceased could have died after about two hours.
[7] Point 6 on the external findings in paragraph 4 of the post -mortem indicates
that there are stab wounds on the upper body and stab wounds on the epigastrium.
When a proposition was put to Dr Tladi about what he would say if somebody said
the person was stabbed once. He said it is not true.
Cross-examination by the defence
[8] When it was put to Dr Tladi that the deceased was stabbed only once, and he
died immediately , Dr Tladi responded that the picture points differently. He also
indicated that the stabbing on the abdomen rarely kills a person immediately, but the
stabbing on the chest will kill a person immediately.
[9] It was also suggested to Dr Tladi that he was tired , and Dr Tladi said it was
not true. When it was put to him that the deceased died on the 10th , not the 11th, he
responded that he relied on the date of the 11th because the body was received on
responded that he relied on the date of the 11th because the body was received on
the 11th. When it was put to him that, as a pathologist, his work is prone to mistakes,
4
he denied it. After cross-examination, the state did not have any questions. The state
then handed in the post-mortem report as Exhibit “C”. The state then closed its case.
Evidence of the accused
[10] The accused informed the Court that she resided at the same address where
the murder occurred as a tenant together with the deceased and their son. There
were three other tenants there. The accused also confirmed that she and the
deceased were married , as the deceased had paid lobola and also, that when this
unfolded, the child was inside the room.
[11] When asked about their relationship , the accused said that before the child
was born, they had a good relationship , they loved each other. When they started
having problems, she thought the situation would stabilise over time. The accused
gave the Court an explanation that before the child was born , she was employed ,
and when she came back from work, the deceased would order her to undress to
check if she had not had sexual intercourse with anyone.
[12] The accused also said that they had a lot of misunderstandings , and the
deceased would then assault her. She explained that in their culture , a woman does
not leave their home or marriage because of assault , but you approach elders to
solve the problem. Even though she approached the deceased brothers, the problem
persisted. She said even when she was pregnant , the deceased would assault her.
She also explained to the Court about the time when she approached the police
during November 2023, but had to drop the charges, because she was afraid of him.
[13] On the morning of 10 November 2023, the deceased came home at about 5
o’clock. When he arrived , he wanted to talk. She told him that it was still early , and
he started to talk to her in a harsh manner and started shouting about the police. The
deceased then assaulted her with open hands, and she covered her face. When she
lowered her hands, she realised that he had a knife in his hand. When the deceased
lowered her hands, she realised that he had a knife in his hand. When the deceased
tried to stab her, she blocked and sustained an injury on the palm. She tried to
disarm him, and they wrestled for the knife.
5
[14] The accused testified that her intention was to take the knife, but the knife
ended up stabbing the deceased. The knife ended up stabbing the deceased at the
time when they fell, and he was at the bottom , and she was on top. She indicated to
the Court the stabbing on Photo 20 and marked it with a black circle and marked it
“T”.
[15] The accused then stated that she was afraid , she then went outside to get
help, but did not do so as she was afraid that the community would attack her, more
especially because she is a foreigner. She was afraid to be burnt because of
previous incidents in the community. Later she realised that the deceased was not
breathing. She then took the child to the creche and went to the doctor. Thereafter,
decided to drink alcohol and later fetched the child from the creche and continued to
drink. She does not reme mber what happened before she went to bed. When she
woke up, she realised that the body had been mutilated.
Cross-examination of the accused
[16] The accused was questioned about the knife in Photo 107, and it seemed like
a difficult question which she does not understand. She said the knife was a kitchen
knife, which was used to cut vegetables. When it was put to her about the knife, she
said she did not want to answer about the knife. She also said that she does not
know how long the fight lasted. She reiterated that the deceased was stabbed only
once. It was put to her during chief-examination that she said she checked if he was
alive or dead, and that showed that she wanted him dead, because she stabbed him
more than once.
[17] Again, the accused continued to say that there was only one stab wound. It
was put to her that there was no threat after she stabbed him once. She did not even
call anyone. When she went to the doctor , she did not tell him that she killed the
deceased. Instead, she told the doctor that she was fighting with someone. She also
deceased. Instead, she told the doctor that she was fighting with someone. She also
confirmed that the body spent the whole day and night in the room until the morning
when she started to remove the body parts. During chief-examination, she told the
Court that the stab wound was on the lower abdomen, but when she marked the
pictures, she marked it on the lower chest, Photo 20. She continued to say there was
only one stab wound.
6
[18] When questioned about the other stab wounds , she said, they might have
come from the mutilation process. Something that was not put to the doctor when he
testified, and she also did not testify , this during chief-examination. She continued to
say that it was just one stab wound when she picked up the t -shirt to check how
many stab wounds.
[19] The accused informed the Court that, after the incident , she covered the body
and pushed it under the bed. Again, something mentioned only in cross-examination.
Due to the lapse of time , she cannot remember which side the deceased was
holding the knife. She told the Court that the deceased uttered the words “you are
becoming overly with me and I will kill you.”
[20] The accused was then asked to explain the size of the knife blade. She said
the blade was approximately 12 centimetres long and longer than the handle. She
said that at the time of wrestling for the knife , she was holding the blade. She also
said during chief-examination that she does not trust the justice system. It was put to
her that, at some stage , the deceased wanted to leave her, and to that she
responded that the deceased wanted to take their savings with. In re -examination,
she showed the Court how they were holding the knife, also, when they fell, how she
was holding the knife with both hands on the blade.
[21] The accused told the Court that as they were fighting or as they were
wrestling, she managed to overpower the deceased. She then called a witness ,
Noluthando Yvonne Khumalo. Ms Khumalo is a police sergeant stationed at
Actonville Police Station. Ms Khumalo remembers the accused from the time when
the accused came to the Client Service Centre (CSC) to report an assault matter. On
that day, Ms Khumalo was posted as a commander of the CSC. She explained to the
Court that she assisted the accused by immediately calling the patrol van to go with
the accused to point out the suspect (now the deceased) so, that he can be arrested.
the accused to point out the suspect (now the deceased) so, that he can be arrested.
On that day , the police did not find him. After filling in the relevant forms , she gave
the accused her private phone number so that she can call her directly when the
accused comes back home so that he can be arrested. But the accused never called
her. She does not remember the ex act date, but it was during October 2023. She
7
told the Court that, because she did not assist the accused , she feels like she failed
her. During cross-examination, she agreed to the statement that the accused
withdrew the case because, if the deceased went to prison , no one would support
her. She confirmed that from October 2023 to November 2023 , when the incident
occurred, the accused did not communicate with her.
Evaluation of evidence
[22] It is a trite principle that the state must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt. In S v van der Meyden,1 the test was set out as follows:
“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”.
[23] However, in R v Mlambo,2 Malan JA said that:
“There is no obligation upon the Crown to close every avenue of escape which may
be said to be open to an accused. It is sufficient for the Crown 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
exist 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 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”.
[24] 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 ,
1996. Murder is regarded as a serious offence that falls within the categories of
Schedule 2 of the Act 105 of 1997. Our courts and society consider human life as
Schedule 2 of the Act 105 of 1997. Our courts and society consider human life as
being precious, and more particularly in a constitutional dispensation such as ours ,
where the right to life is guaranteed by the Constitution. Murder is not only the end of
life of a family member but, it leaves much hardship and pain for the remaining family
1 1957 (4) SA 727 (A) at 738. Also see R v Difford 1937 (AD) 370 at 373-383.
2 1999 (2) SACR 558 (SCA).
8
members, which might not heal. It is common cause that their relationship has a
history of domestic violence. The love relationship between the deceased and the
accused was a complicated one, for the longest time they had domestic disputes that
resulted in the accused approaching the police for assistance.
[25] The accused approached the police station, but as at the time of the murder
there was no protection order in place, as the cases were withdrawn before the
incident unfolded . According to the accused , on previous occasions she would
approach the police station, but nothing came out of that.
[26] It is common cause that the accused is the one who committed these
offences, and there is no dispute about that. She informed the Court that she
stabbed the deceased only once, but the explanation is not consistent with the
injuries explained to the Court by the pathologist, supported by the photo album and
the post-mortem report.
[27] To show that she had an intention to kill, she did not report or alert anyone
either immediately or at a later stage. The explanation she gave to the Court was
that she was afraid, and the Court finds that this is not good enough. She continued
to say she stabbed him once, even after the doctor’s explanation that with that type
of stab wounds sustained by the deceased, the deceased did not die immediately.
[28] In my view , if the accused had asked for help , the deceased could have
survived by getting help for him . It could have shown that she did not have the
intention to kill. She told the Court that after going outside , she came back inside to
check if the deceased was still alive or dead. This also gives an indication that she
really wanted him dead, and that she was not the victim on that day.
[29] Throughout the accused’s own evidence , it shows that after they fell , the
deceased was lying on his back, and he was no longer a threat to her life. In her own
deceased was lying on his back, and he was no longer a threat to her life. In her own
words, she said, that when the deceased was at the bottom , and she was on top ,
she realised that if she did not apply her full strength , she was going to be stabbed,
and she d id not only stab the deceased once, but many times according to the
doctor who performed the post-mortem.
9
[30] Even after the doctor’s testimony , many times she continued to tell the Court
that she stabbed him once. She informed the Court that she was acting in self -
defence. 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. As stated in S v de Oliveira:3
“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”.
[31] In the present case , even if the Court were to believe that the deceased was
the aggressor, the accused exceeded the bounds of self -defence. She had a choice
after taking control of the situation , not to stab him, but to get help, with the
deceased lying on his back, her life was no longer in danger.
[32] On count two, she pleaded guilty. What is surprising is that when she testified
under oath, she told the Court that she was too drunk when she went to sleep on the
10th, and when she woke up the following day, she realised that she had mutilated
someone, but could not remember how it happened. This is a pure indication that
she is not honest with the Court, as she had already pleaded guilty to this count.
[33] The question that remains is, if she realised in the morning that her husband
was mutilated, why then did she continue to immediately dispose of the body and
burn it with petrol at the dumping site? Murder , on its own , is cruel enough, but for
the accused to mutilate the body of the deceased shows that she had all the required
intention to commit both these offences at all times. It is very clear from the record
that she did not want to answer questions about the knife during cross-examination.
that she did not want to answer questions about the knife during cross-examination.
There are a number of crucial questions where she failed to give satisfactory
answers, like when she was asked about the knife. Why not call for help from
anyone, like the neighbours, the deceased brothers, the police , or even the doctor
the following day, or people at the creche, or where she bought alcohol?
3 1993 (2) SACR 59 (A) at 63H-I.
10
[34] She was there when the incident unfolded, but she was unable to take the
Court into confidence about everything that happened on that particular day, step by
step. It does not end there, she then told the Court that she does not trust the justice
system anymore. This , according to her , is supported by her previous experiences
with the police.
[35] To support this , she called a defence witness, Noluthando Yvonne Khumalo ,
who is a police officer. What I fail to understand about the evidence of this witness is
when she says she feels she failed the accused. What is very strange about this is
that the same witness who says she failed the accused immediately after
interviewing the accused about the assault case , called the police van to go with the
accused to arrest the deceased, who was then the suspect. She did not stop there,
when they came back to the police station in the absence of the deceased , she
volunteered to give the accused her own personal number so that she could call her
directly when the deceased came back home. In my opinion, I find this to be the
work of a diligent police officer who cares about everyone who comes to the police
station to ask for help. In my view, the police did not fail to act. In fact , she did what
is expected of her, even more.
Proven facts
[36] The deceased died as a result of the injuries inflicted on him by the accused.
The accused stabbed the deceased multiple times, and those stab wounds did not
penetrate his vital organ s, hence he did not die immediately. It was further proven
that the accused then cut the deceased into pieces, mutilated him , and later took his
body parts to the dumping area to burn them, and also , there were other body parts,
which were later recovered. The above is supported by the scientific evidence and
the post -mortem findings. The doctor even indicated that the deceased was cut
immediately after being stabbed or seconds after death, because of the redness on
immediately after being stabbed or seconds after death, because of the redness on
the cuts. In S v Chabalala,4 it was said that:
“The correct approach is to weigh up all the elements which point towards the guilt of
the accused against all those which are indicative of his innocence, taking proper
account of inherent strengths and weaknesses, probabilities and improbabilities on
4 2003 (1) SACR 134 (SCA) at para 15.
11
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”.
[37] The accused 's version is full of improbabilities and contradictions. The
accused's version cannot be trusted. I find that the accused stabbed the deceased
with the intention of killing him, and thereafter she cut him into pieces. I also find that
she was not acting in self -defence at the time. I also find that if she was acting in
self-defence, she then exceeded the bounds of self -defence. I find that she waited
for the deceased , and when the deceased came back unsuspecting , she attacked
him. She then continued to cut him to dispose of the evidence.
[38] Her version is unconvincing and improbable. Her evidence further conflicted
with the objective facts proved by the state. She fabricated her version to suit her
lies. The accused version is therefore found to be highly improbable. Therefore, not
reasonably, possibly true and is rejected by this Court.
[39] In the result, I find that the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable
doubt after considering the totality of the evidence. Accordingly, the accused is found
guilty on count one, murder, and count two, mutilation of a human body as charged.
Order
1. The accused is found guilty of murder, read with the provisions of section
51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
2. The Accused is found guilty of the mutilation of a human body.
___________________________
MORE AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
Date of Judgment : 26 February 2026
12
Appearances:
For the State: Adv Jacobs
Instructed by: Director of Public Prosecutions
For the accused: Adv Zuze
Instructed by: Machingura Attorneys Inc
13