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 LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED
07 May 2026
________________
______________________
DATE SIGNATURE
CASE NUMBER: SS97/2025
In the matter between:
THE STATE
and
GABISILE DAKILE Accused
_________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_________________________________________________________________
DOSIO J:
Introduction
[1] The accused is arraigned on a count of murder in terms of s51(1) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (‘Act 105 of 1997’).
[2] The State is represented by advocate Maphiri. The accused is represented by Mr.
Ngxumza.
2
[3] The accused elected not to make use of an assessor.
[4] The minimum prescribed sentence of life imprisonment was explained to the accused
and she understood.
[5] The accused pleaded not guilty to stabbing and killing Caswell Ngwenya on 27 April
2023 at 7[...] A[...] Street, Tshepisong. The accused made a statement in terms of
section 115 of Act 51 of 1977. The statement indicates in summary that she and the
deceased were in a love relationship and that they lived at 7[...] A[...] Street,
Tshepisong, Roodepoort. On 26 April 2023, she and the deceased decided to go to a
tavern to drink alcohol, namely at Lova`s pub in Phase six, Tshepisong. They arrived at
20h00 and left at 03h00 on 27 April 2023. The deceased wanted to go to another
tavern, but she refused. She accordingly went home and waited for the deceased to
arrive. On arrival at home, she realised she did not have the keys . She decided to wait
in the outside toilet. When the deceased arrived, he opened the shack and they went
inside. An argument ensued in that the deceased accused her of cheating on him that
is why she had decided to go home early. They were both drunk and started fighting.
The deceased then picked up a knife from the TV stand with the intention to stab the
accused. They fought over the knife until its handle broke. At this point she then
stabbed the deceased in self -defence on hi s chest. She immediately called an
ambulance. She indicated she did not subjectively foresee the possibly of the death of
the deceased as it all happened on the spur of the moment.
[6] In terms of section 220 of Act 51 of 1977, the following formal admission was noted
with the consent of the accused, namely that:
On 27 April 2023 at 7[...] A[...] Street, Tshepisong, Roodepoort, the accused stabbed
the deceased with a knife.
[7] The summary of substantial facts is that the deceased and accused were in a love
relationship and stayed together at 7[...] A[...] Street, Tshepisong in Roodepoort. The
relationship and stayed together at 7[...] A[...] Street, Tshepisong in Roodepoort. The
State alleges that in the early morning hours of 27 April 2023, the deceased and
accused had a fight. The accused then stabbed the deceased with a knife.
[8] At the inception of the trial the following admissions were made in terms of s 220 of the
Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (‘Act 51 of 1977’), namely
3
(a) That the deceased is the person referred to in the indictment on count one, namely
Mr Caswell Ngwenya.
(b) That the deceased died on 27 April 2023 and that the cause of death was
determined to be a penetrating incised wound of the chest.
(c) That the deceased sustained no further injuries from the time the wounds were
inflicted on 27 April 2023 until a post -mortem examination was carried out upon his
body on 3 May 2023.
(d) That Dr Kholiwe Collin Skosana conducted the medico- legal postmortem
examination on the body of the deceased and her findings are as per Exhibit “B”.
(e) That the correctness of the facts are admitted as well as the findings of Dr Kholiwe
Collin Skosana, who compiled the postmortem report regarding the deceased`s death.
The handing in of the medico-legal post-mortem examination as exhibit “B” is agreed to
and admitted.
(f) That the photographs taken by captain Ngako Samuel Setat i, contained in Exhibi t
“C”, are the photographs of the scene of the alleged offence depicting the body of the
deceased. The correctness of the key to the s ketch plan of the photographs was
admitted.
(g) That the Biology Report (DNA) affidavit which was compiled in terms of section 212
of the Criminal Act 51 of 1977 is admitted as well as the findings of warrant officer
Donofatso Jenna Wade Sarela, marked as exhibit “D”.
(h) That the EMS report declaration of death is admitted as exhibit “E”
[9] The following witnesses were called, namely, sergeant Mamburu Lindelani, sergeant
Tendani Mphuma, Serelen Dr uchna Jacobs, warrant officer Donofatso Jenna Sarelo,
Thapelo Majafa, Elsie Ngwenya, Doctor Kholiwe and Collen Skosana, Thapelo Majafa.
The state closed their case and the accused, (Gabisile Dakile) came to testify.
Sergeant Mamburu Lindelani
[10] This witness is a sergeant with 19 years` experience in the SAP. On 27 April 2023, she
was stationed at the Roodepoort Police Station. A complaint of a murder at Antanania
was stationed at the Roodepoort Police Station. A complaint of a murder at Antanania
Street was received. She went with her crew member, namely, sergeant Mphuma to
the scene. When they arrived, they heard a voice saying, “ I killed him ”. This was
uttered by the accused. The accused was referring to her boyfriend. The accused
showed this witness where the deceased was. The accused indicated she had used a
knife. The deceased had a wound on his chest. The accused stated she and the
4
deceased had a verbal argument in that the deceased accused her of cheating. The
knife was found under a couch. The accused fetched the knife.
[11] This witness stated the accused never mentioned to her that the deceased assaulted
the accused. She also did not see any injuries on the body of the accused.
[12] This witness did not touch the knife. She left the knife where the accused had placed it.
The deceased was lying, facing upwards in the shack . He was only wearing his
underpants. The stab wound was clearly visible on his chest.
[13] This witness then placed the accused under arrest.
[14] During cross - examination, she was referred to her statement where she stated at
paragraph three that the accused told her she and the deceased were fighting. She
stated she made a mistake by not adding the word, “verbally” in brackets after the word
fighting. She repeated that the accused did not appear to have any injuries and that if
she was injured, she would have noticed th ese injuries when she was booking the
accused into the cells. She stated she did ask the accused if she was injured when
they arrived at the police station.
[15] This witness stated she could not remember if the accused told her she acted in self -
defence. She conceded she would not be able to comment how the knife got broken.
She stated she saw no injuries to the deceased`s neck. She only saw the stab wound.
However, when presented with the photos in exhibit “C” she stated she coul d see a
scratch below the neck and on the left arm of the deceased. She could not explain if
these scratches on the photos 4 to 8 were sustained as a result of a fight between the
accused and the deceased.
[16] The accused was smelling of alcohol, and one could sense she had come from a
tavern.
Tendani Mphuma
[17] This witness stated that he is a sergeant in the SAP with 18 years` experience. On 27
April 2023, he was on duty at Roodepoort Police Station when he received a complaint
April 2023, he was on duty at Roodepoort Police Station when he received a complaint
of murder via the radio control which had occurred at 7[...] A[...] Street. He together
5
with sergeant Lindelani went to this address. They found the accused in a shack. The
accused responded she had had an argument with the deceased, that they had been
drinking and that it ended up in her stabbing the deceased with a knife. He was
informed the argument started because of an alleged cheating. The accused never told
him that she was defending herself, she just said she was apologising for what she did.
The deceased was wearing an underwear and he was lying down. He had a wound on
the left side of his chest . She did not observe any visible injuries on the accused. The
accused appeared tipsy and she was smelling of liquor.
[18] During cross-examination, this witness stated the accused told him she had a verbal
argument with the deceased. He was shown his statement which was marked as
exhibit “G” where at paragraph 6 of this statement it is mentioned, “she took the knife
out and stabbed him on the chest as she was trying to defend herself ”. This witness
responded, “correct, she said she was regretting what she did, she didn`t mean to hurt
him”. It is clear there was a contradiction between his statement and his oral evidence
in court. His explanation for this is that this incident happened long ago and he did not
even read his statement before he came to testify. Most witnesses read their statement
before they come and testify, especially in respect to matters that happened long ago.
This is a material contradiction as it goes to the root of this matter.
[19] He stated that the word ‘fight’ can mean a physical fight, as well as a verbal argument ,
however, the accused never told him they had a physical fight. This witness saw no
further injuries on the deceased except the injury to the left of his chest
Serelen Druchna Jacobs
[20] She stated on 27 April 2023, she was at Tshepisong. The accused came shouting
asking her if she knew the telephone number of the ambulance and this witness said
asking her if she knew the telephone number of the ambulance and this witness said
no. This witness asked who was hurt and the accused told it was Roy, who i s the
accused`s boyfriend. She followed the accused to her shack and found the deceased
lying down. This witness then went to call the deceased`s sister who asked what was
wrong. The accused then went to call the ambulance. This witness and the deceased`s
sister then waited for the ambulance. When the paramedics arrived, they informed
them the deceased had passed away.
6
[21] This witness did not see any blood or injuries on the deceased. She thought he had
just fainted.
[22] The accused told her that she had an argument with the deceased and that she had
pushed him into a zinc. That is all the accused told her.
[23] This witness knew the accused for about a year, but she was not close to her, she was
merely a neighbour.
[24] She stated she had seen the accused and deceased fighting and having an argument
before this day.
[25] During cross- examination, she stated the accused was very emotional when she saw
her. The accused had been drinking with her boyfriend, as well as the boyfriend of this
witness at a nearby tavern.
[26] She was adamant it is the accused who phoned the ambulance. She stated the
paramedics arrived first and not the police. The paramedics were already there when
the police arrived.
[27] She saw no injury on the accused, and she only saw one injury on the deceased ,
namely, the wound to his chest.
[28] This witness saw no knife or zinc on the floor inside the accused and deceased`s
shack.
[29] This witness could not say if the accused and deceased returned together in the early
morning of 27 April 2023.
Warrant officer Donofatso Jenna Sarelo
[30] This witness testified she is a warrant officer working at the biology section of the
forensic science laboratory in Arcadia. She was on duty on 25 January 2024. She
received a file pertaining to Roodepoort CAS 784/04/2023 containing DNA from a pair
of jeans and from a knife swab . Her conclusion was that the most conservative
occurrence for the DNA result from the blood on the pair of jeans and the blood on the
7
knife swab is 1 in 880 million trillion people. No DNA was obtained from the knife
handle swab or from the knife.
Doctor Kholiwe Collen Skosana
[31] Testified he is a doctor attached to the pathology services. On 3 May 2023, he
conducted a postmortem examination in respect to body DR 513/2023. The cause of
death was a penetrating incised wound of the chest. The wound was a vertical wedge-
shaped wound with sharp edges, which implied a sharp object had been used to
penetrate the left anterior chest.
[32] This doctor did an alcohol test on the deceased which came back higher than the
normal limit. It was 0.14 grams per 100 millilitres.
[33] This doctor observed further injuries on the deceased, which according to the doctor
were fresh injuries. These injuries were as follows:
(a) A 75 mm x 3 mm (shaped scratch mark on the left side of the neck just over the
thyroid cartilage at 20 mm from the midline and 60 mm above the clavi cle, extending
downwards and posteriorly.
(b) A 55 mm x 2 mm scratch mark on the right side of the neck antero- laterally at 8
mm from the midline and 68 mm above clavicle.
(c) A 75 mm x 5 mm hockey stick shaped scratch mark on the right side of the neck
antero- laterally at 4 mm from the midline and 30 mm above the right clavicular head.
[34] As regards the actual stab wound that caused the death of the deceased, this witness
stated that the wound caused fractures of the second and third ribs on the left anteriorly
and that the knife penetrated into the base of the upper lobe of the left lung from
anterior to posterior causing both lungs to collapse.
[35] This witness stated that had the deceased had a thicker layer of fat there would have
been more protection and if there was no fat, the penetrating wound would have gone
into the heart or lungs.
8
Thapelo Majafa
[36] Sergeant Majafa testified he is based at the Roodepoort SAP and has 18 years`
experience. He is currently the investigating officer in this matter.
[37] He explained how the exhibit which were handed into the SAP 13 was registered and
that it corresponded to the seal numbers on the DNA report, namely, exhibit “D”.
[38] He stated the previous investigating officer never made a statement prior to her
passing. He also tried to trace this knife, but he could not. He stated no fingerprints
were taken from this knife.
Elsie Ngwenya
[39] This witness testified she is the mother of the deceased. She stated the accused and
deceased lived in the property she owns at 7[...] A[...] Street.
[40] She stated the accused and deceased had been in a love relationship for two years
and they had a three-year-old child.
[41] She stated that although the accused and deceased loved each other, they could not
see ‘eye to eye’. As a result, the child moved out and went to live at the parental home
in Mdeni. The accused also moved out from 7[...] A[...] Street and came to live with this
witness at phase one.
[42] This witness loved the accused and got along well with her.
[43] Neither the accused nor the deceased ever disclosed the issues they had with each
other to this witness. The accused however did tell this witness that she moved out of
7[...] A[...] Street because the deceased had also moved out from that address and had
taken all his belongings.
[44] This witness stated that on 27 April 2023, she had heard from Patience (her daughter
who is deceased) that the accused had called the deceased informing him that their
child was sick. This remained hearsay evidence.
9
[45] During cross - examination, she stated that on 27 April 2023, the accused was no
longer staying with her.
[46] This witness stated that when the accused came to stay with her, she never mentioned
the deceased had assaulted her in anyway and neither did she see any injuries on the
accused. However, this witness did indicate that the deceased did tell her that accused
was mishandling him and abusing him and that the deceased also had s ome scratches
on this neck. The deceased told her that the accused was beating him. This witness
confirmed that the accused had never opened up a case of assault against the
accused or obtained a protection order against her.
[47] This witness stated that the accused and the deceased had reconciled in January
2023.
[48] This witness later stated that the c hild of the deceased and the accused was staying
with her on 27 April 2023.
[49] The state then closed its case, and the accused came to testify.
The accused
[50] The accused stated that the love relationship wit h the deceased commenced in June
2020. They moved to live together in July 2020. They both then moved to 7[...] A[...]
Street, Tshepisong in March or April of 2022.
[51] In their relationship they had ups and downs as at times they would fight verbally and
at other times, physically.
[52] She stated she gave birth to their child on 4 August 2022 whilst staying at 7[...] A[...]
Street.
[53] She stated that after the birth of their child she went to stay with the deceased`s mother
at phase 1. When she moved out, she left her child with the deceased`s mother.
[54] She stated they came back to live with the accused in October and November 2022
and the relationship between her and the accused was okay. The deceased then
10
moved out from 7[...] A[...] Street in November and went to live in Mdeni as they started
fighting physically. They agreed it wouldn`t be good to live together and fight as they
now had a minor child. She was now working and so was the deceased. In January
2023, the deceased sent her a voice note where he wanted them to resume or get
back together. The deceased started visiting the accused in January 2023 at Antanania
Street. They were basically in a love relationship again.
[55] As regards the events which commenced on the evening of 26 April 2023, due to it
being a long weekend, the deceased said he would come and stay with the accused.
The deceased knocked off from work at 19h00 and arrived at 20h00. When the
deceased arrived, loadshedding had started, so they decided to go to Lova Tavern until
the load shedding would be over. At the tavern, the deceased bought the accused si x
(6) Benini`s and four black labels for himself. They sat down and drank and stayed
there until it closed which was around 02h00. They were both inebriated.
[56] As they were leaving the Lova tavern, the deceased said he wanted to go to another
place. She stated she was okay and she left him there and went home. When she got
home, she realised that she did not have the key to the house as she had left it with the
deceased. She then went into the outside toilet and waited for the deceased to return.
[57] After sometime, between 15 and 2 0 minutes, she heard the deceased unlocking the
shack and she exited the toilet and proceeded to the house. She entered and locked
the door. The deceased asked her where she had been and she said she had been
seated in the toilet. The deceased started removing his clothes an d she warmed up
some food. When the accused was about to sit down and eat, the deceased grabbed
the accused and accused her of cheating or seeing somebody . The deceased was
dressed in his boxer shorts.
[58] The accused and deceased then started pushing each other and the deceased used
[58] The accused and deceased then started pushing each other and the deceased used
his force to push the accused against the wall, causing the mirror to fall off the wall .
The deceased pulled her by her T- shirt and slapped her with an open hand. The
accused tried to scratch him. They then fought using hands and clenched fists.
[59] The accused pushed the deceased against the bed, and the deceased became angry
and he grabbed a knife on the TV stand. The deceased moved towards the accused
11
holding the knife. Her concentration was on the deceased`s hand holding the knife.
She then held his hand to prevent him from stabbing her.
[60] The acc used demonstrated to this court that the deceased had the knife in his right
hand. She held his hand and used all her force to push him away. She twisted the knife
around, so that it would not stab her. The deceased pulled her hair using his left hand.
She could not explain exactly how the deceased got stabbed as the knife brok e while
they were fighting over it. After the knife broke and she pushed the deceased away is
when she saw she had stabbed the deceased. This all happened in a period of two
minutes.
[61] After realising she had stabbed the deceased she went to her neighbour , Ms Jacobs to
ask for the ambulance number. She then phoned 10111 and requested for an
ambulance. The ambulance personnel were the first people to arrive there. The
paramedics informed her the deceased had passed away.
[62] The accused stated she told the police officer that she had been fighting with the
deceased as he suspected she had been cheating.
[63] The male police officer asked her about the whereabouts of the knife. The blade was
found under the couch, and the handle was found in an open space.
[64] She denied telling Ms Jacobs that the deceased had fallen on a zinc.
[65] During cross - examination, she stated the knife broke after she had stabbed the
deceased. She thinks the knife must have been broken after she stabbed the
deceased. She later stated the knife broke before she stabbed the deceased.
[66] She stated she used the blade of the knife to stab the deceased. She did pull the knife
out after stabbing the deceased.
[67] She stated she was drunk when this incident happened and the deceased did sustain
more injuries than she did. She conceded she had consumed more than 6 Benini
ciders.
12
[68] She denied the version of the deceased`s mother that she had been bullying the
deceased. She stated the accused usually accused her of cheating. She conceded that
the scratch mark below the deceased`s neck, (photo 8 ), was caused by her nails as
she was fighting with the deceased and wanted the deceased to let her go.
[69] She stated she could not run away as the deceased was standing in front of the door.
Evaluation
[70] When one considers a criminal case, one must look at the credibility of all the
witnesses and also the version of the accused to determine whether the accused’s
version is reasonably possibly true.
[71] The state advocate has argued that the version of the accused is not reasonably
possibly true, because, if the knife had broken, and she stabbed the deceased with the
blade, she would have had injuries on her hands. The accused also stated that she
pulled the knife out. It was argued further that based on the proportional test, the
defence of the accused must be proportional to the attack. The state is of the
contention that the force used was more than necessary to repel the attack.
Accordingly, the accused subjectively foresaw the possibility of that stabbing the
deceased he would die and she reconciled herself with this fact. The state added that
when a girlfriend kills a partner in self -defence, with no witnesses, as in the matter in
casu, then forensic evidence, past abuse history and the credibility of the accused
come into play.
[72] Private defence, as set out in the main memorandum, is a ground of justification
assessed objectively. Putative private defence arises where that ground of justification
does not legally exist, but the accused genuinely, albeit erroneously, believed that it
did.
[73] The court must assess all available evidence, including the accused’s conduct
immediately after the stabbing, her attempts to seek help, and the consistency of her
immediately after the stabbing, her attempts to seek help, and the consistency of her
account over time, from which her state of mind at the critical moment may be inferred.
[74] Despite the accused’s s220 admissions to killing the deceased, she asserts that she
did not unlawfully and/or intentionally kill the deceased. She grounds this on the
13
version that she and the deceased, following a verbal argument, struggled for control of
the knife that she consequently used to fatally wound him during the alleged attack.
Notably, she claims that both she and the deceased were intoxicated during this
struggle.
[75] The requirements of private defence are settled. In the matter of S v Ntuli 1975 (1) SA
429 (A) 436, where the court stated:
‘A person who suffers a sudden attack cannot always be expected to weigh up all the
advantages and disadvantages of his defensive act and to act calmly. Courts should be
careful to avoid the role of armchair critics, wise after the event, weighing the matter in
the secluded security of the courtroom.’
[76] The test is objective because the enquiry is whether a reasonable person in the
position of the accused, in those circumstances, would have acted in the same way.
The word ‘circumstances’ is critical. It directs the court to place itself in the specific
factual matrix confronting the accused at the critical moment — not in an abstract or
sanitised reconstruction of events.
[77] The state referred this court to the matter of Botha v The State (1074/22017) ZASCA
149 (1 November 2018) to support its argument that the version of self -defence must
fail. The facts of the Botha case differ materially from the matter in casu. In the matter
of Botha, the deceased was standing behind the accused pressed against her back.
The appellant also testified that she did not fear that her life was in danger at the time
she was wrestling with the deceased. The deceased was also not carrying a weapon.
The worst kind of bodily harm the deceased inflicted on the appellant was the
continuous pain to her head as she was being pulled by her hair. There was no
evidence that if the attack continued any form of serious injury would have occurred.
The above -mentioned facts are different to the matter in casu as the deceased was
The above -mentioned facts are different to the matter in casu as the deceased was
coming directly towards the accused whilst wielding the knife. According to the accused
if the deceased was successful serious injury would have been inflicted on her.
[78] The common law confirms the four cumulative requirements for private defence: the
defensive act must be (a) necessary to protect the threatened interest; (b) directed at
the attacker; (c) reasonably proportionate to the attack; and (d) performed with the
knowledge that it is a defensive act. The absence of any one requirement defeats the
plea. (see S v Steyn 2010 (1) SACR 411 (SCA) para 18).
14
[79] In respect of the onus, S v De Oliveira 1993 (2) SACR 59 (A) 63- 64; see also J
Burchell Principles of Criminal Law 5 ed (2016) 125, confirmed that the onus rests on
the state throughout. The state must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
acted unlawfully. The accused bears no onus to prove the truth of her version — she is
eligible for an acquittal if her version is reasonably possibly true. The evidential
standard applicable to the accused's version is further defined by S v Shackell 2001 (4)
SA 1 (SCA) para 26, where the court held that a version may not be rejected merely
because it is improbable. It may only be rejected if it is so inherently improbable that it
cannot reasonably possibly be true.
[80] In R v Zikalala 1953 (2) SA 568 (A) 572, the court confirmed that no person is obliged to
flee where flight does not offer a safe avenue of escape — specifically, where retreat
would merely expose the person to a stab in the back. In such circumstances the
person is entitled to stand their ground. This principle is directly applicable on the
present facts. Where both parties are engaged in a physical struggle for control of a
knife, retreat does not offer a safe avenue of escape. The risk of losing control of the
weapon during any attempt to disengage is real and immediate. In the matter in casu,
the accused states the accused was between herself and the door. This is the only
version this court has. If it is reasonably possibly true, the accused must be given the
benefit of the doubt.
[81] In the matter of S v Steyn (supra) the court confirmed that modern law does not
demand strict proportionality between the attack and the defensive act. The proper
enquiry is whether, having regard to all relevant circumstances, the accused's response
was reasonable. The court identified a non- exhaustive list of relevant factors, including
the relative strength of the parties, their respective sex and age, the means available to
the relative strength of the parties, their respective sex and age, the means available to
both, and the nature and gravity of the attack. A single stab wound inflicted in the
course of a knife struggle is materially different from multiple deliberate wounds inflicted
after the threat has been neutralised. The former is consistent with a defensive
response; the latter is not.
[82] In the matter in casu there was only a single stab wound. The argument of the state
advocate that the accused must have only used the blade to stab the deceased is not
logical. The blade itself, excluding the handle is about 13 cm itself. If this whole blade
penetrated the deceased causing the 135mm wound, then there would have been
15
nothing to hold on. The version of the accused that she stabbed the knife, pulled it out
and that in the process it broke is more feasible.
[83] Of relevance on the present facts is the question of whether the attack had commenced
or remained imminently threatening at the precise moment the accused inflicted the
fatal wound. According to the accused, the threat was imminent. If she had run away
the deceased may have stabbed her in the back. The version of her holding the
deceased’s right hand to prevent the deceased from stabbing her is very likely.
[84] The state contends that less harmful means were available to the accused in the course
of the alleged struggle. This court must assess that contention not with the benefit of
hindsight, but from the vantage point of a reasonable person confronting the same
circumstances at the critical moment. This court finds that the version of the accused
that she had to act in the manner she did was necessary to protect the threatened
interest; furthermore, the defence was directed at the attacker . The defence was
reasonably proportionate to the attack and the accused acted with the knowledge that it
is a defensive act. This version is also supported by the affidavit of sergeant Mphuma
who says that the accused told her that she acted in self-defence.
[85] The version stated by Ms Jacobs that the accused told her the deceased fell on a zinc
is not corroborated by the photos. There is no zinc found lying in this property. On the
other hand, the version of the accused that she and the deceased fought and that they
broke a mirror is corroborated by photo 9 of exhibit ‘C’. This court only has one version
of events before it, which the state has failed to rebut.
[86] The version of the accused that she and the deceased were extremely intoxicated is
corroborated by sergeant Mamburu Lindelani who states the accused smelt o f liquor as
if she had been in a tavern. The blood specimen of the deceased also shows that the
if she had been in a tavern. The blood specimen of the deceased also shows that the
deceased’s blood was over the limit. Due to the level of intoxication, this court does not
draw a negative inference from the accused’s explanation of the physical fight, when
and how the knife was broken, as the intoxication would have affected to a certain
degree the recollection of the sequence of events.
[87] This court must add that this investigation was very poor. The most important object,
namely the handle of the blasé was never sent for forensic analyses or fingerprints. Had
this been done and there were no fingerprints of the deceased on that handle then
16
without a doubt the version of self -defence would have failed. However, this is not the
case.
[88] This court is not convinced that the state has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or
that the accused subjectively had the intention to kill the deceased. The accused’s
version of self-defence is reasonably possibly true and she is acquitted.
______________________
D DOSIO
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
APPEARANCES
ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED: Adv Ngxumza
Instructed by Legal Aid SA, Johannesburg
ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: Mr. Maphiri
Instructed by the Office of the National
Director of Public Prosecutions, Johannesburg
ARGUED ON: 06 May 2026
JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN: 07 May 2026