About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 575
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Manyange and Another v S (A2025/034700) [2026] ZAGPJHC 575 (21 May 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
APPEAL
NO
:
A2025-034700
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
In
the matter between:
MANYANGE,
BENJAMIN
FIRST APPELLANT
MTHEMBI,
KATAKANI
SECOND APPELLANT
and
THE
STATE
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
KARAM
AJ
:
INTRODUCTION:
[1] The appellants
were convicted in the Johannesburg Regional Court on a charge of
contravening Section 4 (1)(a)(ii)(bb)
read with
Sections 1
,
2
,
4
(2),
24
,
25
,
26
(1)(a) of the
Prevention and Combating of Corrupt
Activities Act 12 of 2004
– corruption.
[2] The appellants
were charged and convicted in terms of the provisions of Section
51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act
105 of 1997 (“the
minimum sentence provisions”).
[3] The appellants
were each sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
[4] Leave to appeal
was sought in respect of conviction and sentence. Same was
refused by the court a quo.
[5] The appellants
subsequently petitioned this court for leave to appeal the conviction
and sentence. Leave to appeal
was granted only in respect of
sentence.
ISSUES ON APPEAL
[6] The issues to
be determined are whether the trial court erred in imposing a
sentence which is startingly inappropriate
in the circumstances;
whether the trial erred in failing to find substantial and compelling
circumstances, warranting a departure
from the imposition of the
prescribed minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment; and whether the
sentence imposed is disproportionate
in the circumstances.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
[7]
It is trite that punishment is pre-eminently a matter for the
discretion of the trial court. A court of appeal can
only
interfere with the sentence imposed where that discretion has not
been judicially, properly or reasonably exercised, resulting
in
irregularity or misdirection, or where the sentence imposed is
shockingly inappropriate in that it is substantially different
from
that sentence which the appeal court would have imposed.
[1]
AD SENTENCE
[8] Section 51(2)
of the minimum sentence provisions provides for the imposition of a
minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment.
[9] In S v
Malgas (supra) it was stated that the minimum sentence legislation
aimed at ensuring a severe standardized
and consistent response from
the courts and is to be applied unless there are and can be seen to
be truly convincing reason for
a different response. Further, that
the specified sentences are not to be departed from lightly or for
flimsy reasons which cannot
withstand scrutiny. This has been
reiterated by the superior courts on numerous occasions.
[10]
The gravity of corruption by police officers cannot be
overemphasised. It threatens to very fabric of our society
and
our Constitution and offends against the rule of law.
[2]
[11] Further
aggravating factors include:
[11.1] the fact
that the complainant was taken to his residence by the appellants and
that several of his items were removed
therefrom by them, including
his passport, identity document, employment card, matric certificate,
as well as his partner’s
passport. Only his driver’s
licence was returned to him. He further believes that the
appellants took his iPad;
[11.2] the fact
that whilst the monies taken from the complainant was the sum of
R1000,00, the appellants had demanded from
him the sum of at least
R5000,00 and his inability to pay same resulted in the items
aforesaid not being returned to him;
[11.3] the fact
that the appellants were members of a specialised unit investigating
serious crimes;
[11.4] the lack of
any remorse whatsoever, notwithstanding that the appellants were
literally caught red handed.
[12] I am of the
view that:
[12.1] the court a
quo correctly found that there is nothing substantial and compelling
in the appellants’ personal
circumstances;
[12.2] the court a
quo properly considered all the mitigating factors, and correctly
found that same, neither individually
nor cumulatively considered,
constitute substantial and compelling factors;
[12.3] the
imposition of the minimum sentence is not disproportionate,
considering the facts and circumstances as a whole,
and does not
result in an injustice.
The sentence imposed is
further in line with that imposed in similar matters.
[13] In the
circumstances, I propose the following Order:
[13.1]
The appeal against sentence is dismissed.
W
A KARAM
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT
I AGREE AND IT IS SO
ORDERED:
S C MIA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
Appearances:
Appellant:
W T Rambau
Rambau
Attorneys
Respondent:
Adv M Phatlanyane
Director
of Public Prosecutions
Gauteng
Division, Johannesburg
[1]
S
v Pieters
1987 (3) SA 717
(A);
S
v Malgas
2001 (1) SACR 469
(SCA);
DPP
v Mngoma
2010 (1) SACR 427
(SCA);
S
v Le Roux & Others
2010 (2) SACR
11
(SCA);
S v Grobler
2015 (2) SACR 210
(SCA)
[2]
S
v Shaik & others
2007(1) SACR 247 (SCA)