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, PRETORIA
CASE NO: CC 22/2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE 30/04/2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between
THE STATE
and
ANTOINETTE MARITZ
________________________________________________________________________
____
JUDGMENT
________________________________________________________________________
____
MAKAMU J
2
Introduction
[1] This matter was before Phahlane J, who, unfortunately, is no longer available
to proceed with the trial, and it had to be started De Novo. The State and the
Defense adopted the approach that the matter should indeed start De Novo ;
however, transcripts of the record from the start of the trial were made available, and
the State will call all the witnesses who testified to confirm their testimony as per the
transcript.
[2] The accused appears before this court on an indictment containing four
counts:
1. Murder (read with section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of
1997);
2. Attempted murder (read with section 51(2) of the same Act)1;
3. Robbery with aggravating circumstances (read with section 51(2))2;
4. Defeating or obstructing the administration of justice.
[3] The accused is defended by Adv. Matshego, who has been instructed by
Legal Aid South Africa (LASA).
[4] The offence s arose from the accused and her former boyfriend Mr. Johan
Pratt killing Mr. W[...] H[...] by slitting his throat with a sharp object that could be a
knife and attempting to kill Ms . M[...] H[...] by striking her with blunt object on her
head three times then tie her legs and her hands to a chair which she was caused to
sit on, then the y took her car, watch and ring, two cell phones and one thousand
rand (R1000) in cash. The accused and her former boyfriend then bundled the dead
body of Mr . W[...] H[...] into the car of Ms . M[...] H[...] and dumped the body in
Standerton in the veld. All the clothes of the deceased were also taken by the
accused and her former boyfriend, Johan Pratt.
1 Criminal Amendment Act 105 of 1997, S 51(2)
2 Criminal Amendment Act 105 of 1997, S 51 (2)
3
[5] The State alleged further that all these offences were committed in
furtherance of a common purpose with Johan Pratt . The murder of Mr. W[...] H[...]
was pre -planned or premeditated, and as such, section 51(1) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 105 of 1997, found application, and in case of conviction , it attracts
a sentence of life imprisonment unless the accused addu ces substantial and
compelling reasons to deviate from imposing the minimum sentence prescribed. The
application of sections 51(1) and 51(2) of the Crim inal Law Amendment Act, 105 of
1997, was explained to the accused before she could even plead to the charges, and
she understood the explanation.
[6] The accused pleaded not guilty to all the charges . She elected to remain
silent and not offer any plea explanation. There was an undertaking by the State and
the Defense that, under section 220 of the Criminal Procedure Act 3, admissions
would be submitted at a later stage to curtail the proceedings.
[7] The State is represented by Adv. M Masilo. Johan George Pratt is
represented by Mr. HL Alberts and has entered into a comprehensive plea and
sentence agreement in terms of section 105A of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of
1977. The accused, Ms. Antoinette Maritz, is not a party to that agreement but has
tendered formal admissions in terms of section 220 of the same Act4.
Johan Pratt's admissions
[8] The following facts are accepted by this court as proven, largely through the
detailed admissions of Johan Pratt:
1. The deceased, Mr. W[...] H[...], was in a relationship with the accused, Ms.
Antoinette Maritz, with whom Johan Pratt had previously been in a stormy
relationship and had three children.
2. Maritz had left Pratt approximately nine months prior to the incident and
moved in with the deceased.
3 Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, S 220.
4 Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977, S 220.
4
3. Pratt retained feelings for Maritz and was deeply concerned about access to
his youngest child, whom Maritz had taken with her.
4. On the day of the offences, Pratt attended the deceased’s home at 8[...] B[...]
Street, Suiderberg, Pretoria.
5. There, acting on the instigation and manipulation of Maritz, Pratt attacked the
deceased, W[...] H[...], inflicting perforating incised wounds to his neck and
chest, from which he died.
6. Pratt also brutally assaulted Ms. ME H […] (the victim in count 2), inflicting
severe head injuries, and left her bound to a chair.
7. Pratt and Maritz then robbed the deceased’s home of the items listed in count
3.
8. Thereafter, the deceased’s body was transported to Standerton,
Mpumalanga, and left in the field along the R50 road, where it was
discovered the following day.
9. A motor vehicle was also taken but was later recovered.
[9] Critically, Johan Pratt admits that he was motivated by his concern for his
children and that Maritz spurred him on, including by threatening to prevent access
to his child. He admits that Maritz had a significant hold over him and manipulated
him. He admits that he foresaw that his assault on Ms. H […] could result in her
death.
Antoinette Marits admissions
[10] The accused has not entered a plea agreement. However, she has tendered
formal admissions in terms of section 220 of Act 51 of 1977. Those admissions are
notably silent on the following:
1. Whether she was present at the scene , but later she admitted being at the
scene of the crime.
2. Whether she participated in the assault, the robbery, or the disposal of the
body.
3. Whether she premeditated or planned the murder.
5
[11] Her admissions are purely technical: confirming the identity of the deceased,
the medical findings, the chain of evidence regarding the body, and the fact that
items were stolen from the premises. She admits no actus reus (guilty act) and
no mens rea (guilty mind).
[12] However, the court is not limited to her section 220 admissions. The detailed
plea agreement of Johan Pratt (which the State accepts as true) is evidence before
this court. From that evidence, the following emerges against the accused:
a. She was in a relationship with the deceased.
b. She had a prior stormy relationship with Johan Pratt.
c. She manipulated Johan Pratt.
d. She spurred him on by sending him a picture of his daughter on WhatsApp
showing a cut on her cheek and claiming the deceased was responsible.
e. She threatened to deny him access to his child.
f. She had a “significant hold” over him.
g. She was the one who, according to the substantial facts admitted by Pratt,
was the motivating and directing force behind the offences.
[13] The accused had multiple opportunities to report the incident , as she claims
Johan Pratt consistently threatened her to keep quiet or he would kill her. In the case
of Luvuyo Lungile , Siyanda Mtulu, and the state, case number 493/1998 by SCA,
paragraph 8 of the judgment highlights that there was no compulsion whatsoever in
the commission of the offenses. It was never put that the First Appellant was, in fact,
threatened or that threatened harm was imminent or had commenced. No evidence
suggests that Johan Pratt threatened the accused. These are essential elements of
the defence of compulsion. These opportunities are set out in the following sequence
of events:
1. The construction workers who work with the deceased came to fetch him for
work in the morning , after his death. The accused could have informed the
construction workers of the incident, but she lied to Mrs. H[...] and said she
had fought with the deceased, and he had left the house.
6
2. The accused called a tuk-tuk to transport her daughter to crèche, which is a
20–30-minute drive. In that time, she could have requested the tuk-tuk driver
to take her to the police station to report the crime.
3. The accused arrived at the crèche to drop off her daughter , and that could
have been an opportunity to report the incident to the teachers , as she was in
a safe environment.
4. Ms. H[…] requested the accused to make her coffee before she leaves for her
errands. At this time, the accused could have informed Ms. H[...] of what had
transpired, as she was unaware that Johan Pratt was in the house.
5. When Ms. H […] came back from work, she could have still told her of the
incident; however, she was distracted by the accused, and then Johan Pratt
attacked her with a blunt object, which was an ashtray , the size of a football ,
on her head.
6. The accused and Johan Pratt bundled up the body of the deceased into the
back of Ms. H[…]'s vehicle. They also took all of W[...] H[...]'s clothes as well
as two (2) cellphones, rings, a watch, and one thousand rands (R 1000) cash,
which she concealed in her bra.
7. They drove to Standerton but decided to stop in a secluded area to wait until it
was dark. They dumped the body of the deceased on the outskirts of
Standerton, then drove to Barry Pratt’s house, who is the brother of Johan
Pratt.
8. Barry Pratt saw blood on their suitcase as he was offloading it to the house ,
whilst Johan Pratt and the accused were having a meal. Barry enquired from
Johan Pratt who the car belonged to, and he said he borrowed it from a friend.
He further enquired about the blood in the car and suitcase, and Johan Pratt
said the friend said it was from hunting a buck that he had killed . Barry Pratt
then sent the car details to a friend in security to check the vehicle . The
vehicle's results prompted him to decide he did not want it in his yard. Johan
Pratt told Barry Pratt to accompany him to drop off the car at the friend from
Pratt told Barry Pratt to accompany him to drop off the car at the friend from
whom he borrowed it, who said he would collect it at Jonkers Dam at around 9
pm. Barry Pratt accompanied him to the location, and he was driving his own
vehicle.
At this time, the accused could have informed Barry Pratt’s wife of what had
transpired, but she did not take the opportunity to do so.
7
9. The accused and Johan Pratt stayed with Barry Pratt and his wife for almost a
month when Barry Pratt decided to move to a house in town, closer to his
workplace. This house happened to be 2 -3 houses away from the police
station. She failed to take the opportunity to report the incident to the police.
10. The accused and Johan Pratt moved to Benoni, where they stayed with Mr.
Tony Forrester in Petit. At the time, Johan Pratt was offered employment at
the place where he was working during the day. Mr. Forrester testified that the
accused would go to the shops in Petit while Johan Pratt was at work , and at
this time, she could have used the opportunity to go to the police station or
even tell Mr. Forrester what had transpired.
11. The accused only called the police when she was informed that they were
looking for her. She did not call the police voluntarily or out of good
conscience.
12. Lastly, it is important to note that the accused let in Johan Pratt through the
window and not the main or back door. She further witnessed Johan Pratt
killing the deceased and further failed to seek help.
[14] In addition to the multiple opportunities the accused had to report the incident,
every single independent witness testified that she appeared normal, calm, and not
in distress. This is wholly inconsistent with a person acting under duress. Witnesses
like Elaine Rossouw, Barry Pratt, Sussan H[...], and Tony Forrester, and this is
wholly inconsistent with a person acting under duress.
[15] The accused did not merely passively comply. She was the architect of the
plan. She sent the provocative messages, opened the gate, provided the weapons,
lied to cover up the murder, and urged the killing of a second victim (Ms. H[...]). This
is the conduct of a co -perpetrator, not a victim. She attempted to provide a pillow to
Mr. Johan Pratt to suffocate Ms. H[...] when she tapped him on his back.
Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Ms. H[...], she thought the accused was stopping Mr.
Unfortunately, unbeknownst to Ms. H[...], she thought the accused was stopping Mr.
Pratt from killing her.
Legal principles
8
[16] The state has a legal duty to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as
enunciated in S v Jackson 1998 5. In the case of S v Chabalala 2003 6, Heher AJ
stated that:
“The correct approach is to weigh up all the elements which points 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 both sides and, having done so, to decide wh ether the
balance weighs so heavily in favour of the state as to exclude any reasonable
doubt to the accused’s guilt.”
[17] The doctrine of common purpose applies squarely. In S v Mgedezi 1989 7,
the court held that where an accused is present at the scene of a crime, shares a
common purpose with others, and manifests that sharing by performing some act of
association with the others' conduct, they are liable for the actions of all.
[18] In Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S 2019 8, the court cited the case of Jacobs v S
20199, where the court stated:
“The operation of the doctrine does not require each participant to know or
foresee in detail the exact way in which the unlawful results are brought
about. The State is not required to prove the causal connection between the
acts of each participant and the consequence, for example, murder.”
[19] In S v Toubie 200410, Farber AJ stated:
“It would be naïve to suggest that the common purpose of the group was to
rob, and that alone. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, each one
of them must have foreseen and therefore by inference did foresee that they
would be required to make good their getaway and that in that process they
might meet resistance. It was equally foreseeable that such resistance would ,
5 S v Jackson 1998 (1) SACR 470 SCA
6 S v Chabalala 2003 (1) SACR 135 SCA
7 S v Mgedezi 1989 (1) SA 687 (A)
8 Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S 2019 [2019] ZACC 48 at para 39
9 Jacobs v S [2019] ZACC; 2019 (1) SACR 623 (CC); 2019 (5) BCLR 562 (CC) at para 70
9 Jacobs v S [2019] ZACC; 2019 (1) SACR 623 (CC); 2019 (5) BCLR 562 (CC) at para 70
10 S v Toby 2004 (1) SACR 530 WLD, p 549 at para d,e,f
9
in all likelihood, result in firearms being discharged, not only by them but by
those in pursuit of them. Given this, none of them could have misunderstood
the very real possibility of innocent bystanders being wounded, whether fatally
or not. When in that process a life is taken , or an attempt is made to do so, it
matters naught whether the shot in question is discharged by a member of the
group or by one of the pursuers.”
[20] The accused stated in her evidence that Johan Pratt told her that , since she
had a new boyfriend, if he ever gave her trouble, she should contact him and he
would fetch her. It is no surprise that Johan Pratt came to know of her address in
Pretoria, at Suiderberg, and that only she knew of his arrival , subsequently gave him
access through the gate, and finally through the window.
[21] This is corroborated by the fact that she had sent a picture to Johan Pratt
through WhatsApp, showing a cut on the child’s cheek, insinuating that W[...] H[...]
was somehow responsible for it. This was done to arouse his anger, yet the injury
happened at the child’s creche . Johan Pratt told Barry Pratt that he would kill W[...]
H[...] (the deceased) after receiving the image from the accused.
[22] It is very clear that when Johan Pratt arrived at the house, the only mission
was to kill the deceased, and the accused was the brains behind this murder. The
accused claims that she was threatened by Mr. Johan Pratt, but facts speak for
themselves, as she had numerous opportunities to break away from Mr. Johan Pratt
but chose not to do so. The only explanation is that she was the main instigator and
architect of the commission of the offenses, although in some instances, not by her
own hand, but by a willing partner in crime, Mr. Johan Pratt. I can also add that the
accused is a very good orator whilst relating her story, that one is bought into it, yet
she is just a good actor in the whole thing.
Conviction
she is just a good actor in the whole thing.
Conviction
[23] On Count 1 (Murder): The accused’s role in planning and executing the killing
of W[...] H[...] is direct and profound. She is guilty of murder as charged with the
10
provisions of section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 105 of 1997, as a
co-perpetrator.
[24] On Count 2 (Attempted Murder): The accused urged Johan Pratt to kill Ms.
H[...] and actively facilitated the attack by making coffee and creating a normal
atmosphere to distract her from seeing Johan Pratt in the house as he attacked her
from behind whilst she was talking to the accused. She is guilty of attempted murder.
[25] On Count 3 (Robbery with Aggravating Circumstances): The robbery was
committed with a weapon (the ashtray, the knife) and violence. They inflicted bodily
injuries on Ms. H[...]. The accused suggested taking the vehicle and was present
throughout. She is guilty of robbery with aggravating circumstances.
[26] On Count 4 (Defeating the Ends of Justice): The accused lied to Ms. H[...], her
cleaning of the scene, and her flight with Mr. Pratt all constitute a deliberate attempt
to obstruct the course of justice. She is guilty on this count as well.
[27] Based on the combined effect of the totality of the evidence led by the State,
the accused’s section 220 admissions , and the unchallenged factual admissions of
Johan Pratt, the State has established a prima facie case that the accused was a co-
perpetrator or, at a minimum, an accomplice who premeditated and induced the
murder and all other offenses that followed.
11
Order
I hereby make the following order;
1. The accused is guilty of murder, read with section 51(1) of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.
2. The accused is found guilty of attempted murder of Ms M[...] H[...]
3. The accused is found guilty of robbery with aggravating
circumstances, read with section 51(2) of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act 105 of 1997
4. The accused is found guilty of defeating the ends of justice as
charged.
______________________
12
M S MAKAMU
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
13
Appearance on behalf of the State:
Advocate M Masilo
Appearance on behalf of the accused:
Legal Aid South Africa
Advocate OK Matshego