SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, HELD AT PRETORIA
CASE NO: CC35/2025
DATE: 30.03.2026
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
In the matter between
THE STATE
And
B[...] T[...]
SENTENCE
MATLAPENG AJ: Mr B[...] T[...], herein after the accused, is 48 years of age,
convicted of murder, read with the provisions of section 51(1) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act 105 of 1997. On 11 November 2025, he pleaded guilty to the charge,
and after the Court found that he pleaded guilty correctly to the charge that he
admitted all the elements of the offence preferred against him. The Court returned a
verdict of guilty as charged.
2. The provisions of Section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of
1977, herein after the Minimum Sentence Act, finds application in that the accused
was in a domestic relationship with the deceased and the death of the deceased
resulted from physical abuse as contemplated in paragraph (a) of the definition of
domestic violence in section 1 of the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998.
3. This Court must now consider what an appropriate sentence is and in the
assessment of what an appropriate sentence is, the Court must have regard to and
pay attention to the accused personal circumstances, the offence of which he has
been convicted, and the interest of the community. And none of the triad mentioned
in Rex v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A) should be overemphasised at the expense of and
to the exclusion of others.
4. In the case of Rabie 1975 (4) SA 855 (A), it was held that:
"Punishment should fit the criminal as well as the crime, be fair to society and
be blended with a measure of mercy according to the circumstances."
5. A brief synopsis of the fac ts that led to the conviction of the accused is
necessary, the accused and the deceased were life partners. On 30 November 2024,
which is the day of the incident, they had an argument over a bottle of beer. The
accused hit the diseased with a bottle the y had been drinking before the deceased
departed this planet earth.
6. The circumstances under which this offense occurred attracts the imposition
of the prescribed sentence of life imprisonment if the Court can find that there are no
substantial and comp elling circumstances justifying this Court to deviate from
imposing the prescribed term of life imprisonment.
The post-mortem report, which was handed in as EXHIBIT B, determined the
cause of death as multiple stab wounds with large volume blood loss. A photo album
and key thereto were also handed in as EXHIBIT C.
Photos 3, 4, 5 and 6 depicts the deceased 's head and face, these photos
demonstrate in clear terms that the deceased was severely assaulted. They also
depict a gash across her face above the left eye, above the right eye. Photo 8 of
EXHIBIT C depicts a broken beer bottle.
7. In the case of S v Malgas 2001 (1) SACR 469 (SCA); 2001 (2) SA 122; 2001
(3) All SA 220. The Supreme Court of Appeals states that:
"The Court may impose a lesser sentence if on consideration of the
circumstances of a particular case. It is satisfied that they render t he
prescribed sentence unjust, in that it would be disproportionate to the crime,
the criminal, and the needs of society so that an injustice would be done by
imposing that sentence."
8. Every human being has the inherent right to life. And no one shall ar bitrarily
be deprived of his or her right to life. Section 11 of the Constitution of the Republic of
South Africa Act 108 of 1976 provides:
"Everyone has the right to life."
9. Closely akin to the protection of the right to life in the Constitution is the
protection of one's right to freedom and security of the person. Section 12(1) of the
Constitution provides that everyone has the right to freedom and security of the
person, which includes:
a. Not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or;
b. Without just cause;
c. To be free from all forms of violence from either public or private
sources'
d. Not to be tortured in anyway.
10. In terms of section 36 of the Constitution, the rights in the Bill of Rights may
be limited in exception of the right to lif e, which is an absolute right. The
fundamental human right to life was infringed upon by the accused in this matter
because on 11 November 2025, he pleaded guilty to having murdered the deceased
and I convicted him as charged.
11. Mr Kgagara for the defence from Legal Aid South Africa argues that the Court
should find that there are substantial and compelling circumstances justifying this
Court to depart from imp osing the prescribed sentence of life imprisonment. He
argues that the following factors, cumulatively taken into account, should be found to
constitute substantial and compelling circumstances.
a. That accused pleaded guilty to this charge, which in itself shows a sign
of remorse on his part.
b. That he spent more than a year in custody awaiting triaI.
c. That he has three children with the deceased of 19, 15, and 13 years
old, respectively. He has other two children, but it appears there is no good
relationship between the latter two children and the accused.
d. He was the principal caregiver of the deceased's children.
e. That he is suffering from diabetes.
f. And lastly, that alcohol played some role during the commission of the
offense he is convicted of.
12. Adv Rancho, on the other hand , argue that the Court should find that there
are no substantial and compelling circum stances and that the Court should impose
the prescribed sentence of life imprisonment.
Adv Rancho for the state argues in the main that regard being heard to the
accused previous convictions, which demonstrates that he is a violent person and
that the deceased was brutally murdered, as well as the victim impact report, that
these factors should persuade the Court to find that there are no substantial and
compelling circumstances.
13. A probation officer's report was also handed in as an exhibit, and the
probation officer observes that the accused is a violent person. It will later appear
that this observation by the probation officer, is confirmed by the acc used's previous
convictions.
A victim impact report was also handed in by S[...] V[...], it is a 19 -year-old
child. He is the first of three children. He states in the report that he does not have
any financial support. They are being maintained by the grandmother. His two
siblings are receiving R500 for grants. He is struggling and is presently doing Grade
12.
The probation officer recommended a direct prison term. The accused has
previous convictions. On 23 August 2003, he was convicted of assault and was
sentenced to R400 or 30 days imprisonment.
On 9 December 2004, that is the following year, he was convicted of rape and
sentenced to two years' imprisonment, which was wholly suspended for a period of
three years on condition that he is not again convicted of rape or attempted rape
committed during the period of suspension.
On 12 August 2005, he was convicted of culpable homicide. He was
sentenced, in terms of section 276(1 )(h), to one-year correctional supervision.
On 3 September 2013, at Khutsong, he was convicted of assault with intent to
do grievous body harm and sentenced to six months imprisonment without the option
of a fine.
Adv Rancho for the State brought it to the attention of the Court that this last
previous conviction, the deceased in this matter was the complainant. And this was
confirmed by Mr Kgagara after consultation with the accused.
15. The previous convictions of the accused demonstrates in clear and
unequivocal terms that the accused is a violent perso n. And they demonstrate that
he was treated with velvet gloves in the past. He was treated leniently on all these
instances. I find it aggravating that the deceased in this matter was brutally killed.
And the accused was convicted in the past of assaul t with the intent to do grievous
body harm for having assaulted the deceased in this matter. And the accused, this is
the second person he killed. He has a previous conviction of culpable homicide, the
deceased is the second person that the accused has killed.
16. In the case of S v Eadie 2002 (1) SACR 663 (SCA), the Court held that :
"The message that must reach society is that consciously giving in to one's
anger or to other emotions and endangering the lives of other members of
society will not be tolerated and will be met with the full force of the law."
17. I am in agreement with Mr Kgagara for the defence that the fol lowing factors
cumulatively taken into account are sufficient to constitute substantia I and
compelling factors and entitling this court to deviate from imposing the prescribed
time of life imprisonment. That he pleaded guilty to this charge, which in itself
shows a sign of remorse on his part. That he spent more than a year in custody
awaiting trial. That alcohol played some part during the commission of the offense.
18. After having considered all the relevant factors, the one against the ot her in
an attempt to strike a balanced sentence, the Court is of the view that the sentence
to be pronounced shortly will be a just one under the circumstances. He may stand
up.
19. In the result, the accused is sentenced as follows: 25 years imprisonment.
The accused is declared unfit to possess a firearm.
MATLAPENG AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE:·30/03/2026
TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that so far as it is audible to me , the aforegoing is
a tr ue and correct transcript of the proceedings recorded by means of a digital
recorder in the matter between:
THE STATE// B[...] T[...]
CASE NUMBER : CC35/2025
RECORDED AT : PRETORIA
DATE HELD : 30.03.2026
NUMBER OF PAGES : 9
PROBLEMS EXPERIENCED WITH RECORDING
1. Incorrect grammar typed verbatim.
2. Unknown names typed phonetically.
3. Microp hone un clear / so ft / air conditioner on. Refer to [indi stinct] th roughout
record of transcription.
4.
DATE COMPLETED: 16.04.2026
TRANSCRIBER:
Monique Engelbrecht
(Sworn-in Transcriber)