IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL CASE NO: A342/2024
(l ) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
SIGNATURE
In the criminal appeal of:
ALPHEUS MPHOKANE Appellant
and
THE STATE Respondent
JUDGMENT
LABUSCHAG NE J
Page2
[1] The appellant appeals against a sentence he received for a conviction of
attempted murder. He was convicted in the Pretoria Regional Court on a
charge of attempted murder in that on or about 31 August 2020 and at or near
Silver Lakes, he unlawfully and intentionally attempted to kill Tooka James
Ramatsetse, a male person, by stabbing him with a knife.
[2] During the trial the appellant was legally represented, and he plead guilty to
the charge, but after questioning by the Court a quo a plea of not guilty was
entered in terms of section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977.This
was because the appellant only admitted stabbing the victim once while he
was stabbed three times.
[3] On 9 September 2024 the Court a quo convicted the appellant and sentenced
him to 15 years imprisonment. The Court a quo_also ordered that the appellant
remains unfit to possess a firearm, in terms of section 103(2) of Act 60 of 2000.
[4] The Court a quo granted leave to appeal against the sentence on 10 July
2024 .
[5] At the time when the offence was committed there was no prescribed
minimum sentence applicable to the charge in question in terms of the
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 105 of 1997. The appellant contends that the
Court a quo erred in imposing the sentence in that the sentence imposed
would not aid his rehabilitation. He contends that the Magistrate failed to take
into account the effect that long-term imprisonment would have on the
appellant.
Page 3
[6] The appellant contends that he is a first offender and that there is a possibility
of him being reformed and rehabilitated. He has four children, two of whom
are minors and the appellant was responsible for maintaining the minor
children.
[7] The appellant contends that the court must take into account that he spent two
years and nine months in prison awaiting trial. While the court a quo took this
into account, the contention is that it was not accorded due weight. The
appellant contends that a sentence of ten years would be appropriate.
[8] The following appears from the judgment from the Court a quo:
"1. At Makro, that is when this witness asked as to what was the fight all
about and accused informed him that Ramatsetse was owing him. He
offered to give the accused the money owed to him by Ramatsetse, but
accused refused.
2. They then continued chasing each other. They were running in circles
around the cars at Makro. Ramatsetse tripped, fell down and accused
was on top of him. The witness paused at this stage and was crying
hysterically. It was his further evidence that accused used his right
hand to stab Ramatsetse on the thigh for the first time.
3. The second time he stabbed him on the stomach and for the third time
he stabbed him on the stomach again and Ramatsetse's intestines came
out. Ramatsetse informed Alpheus that he is killing him. Alpheus being
Mphokane (the appellant). Accused stood up and left."
Page4
From the record it appears that the evidence of two eye-witnesses confirm the
above summary. The one witness expressly confirmed that the victim had
been stabbed multiple times, resulting in his intestines coming out. This
witness then placed the intestines in a plastic bag and accompanied the victim
to hospital, while telling him to hold his stomach.
[9] The doctor's evidence, Dr Makazi, confirms that devastating effects that the
injuries has had on the victim. He had a knife wound deep into his thigh in
addition to the stomach wounds. As a result of the injuries he became
wheelchafr bound. He has since also become blind and unable to speak and
is in need of full time care. At the sentencing hearing, the wife of the victim
asked the appellant why he did not simply finish off the victim. This was an
expression of how much pain she and the victim ·were enduring. Those around
the victim were suffering and considered that the life of the victim was hardly
worth living.
[1 OJ The Court a quo regarded the following as being in aggravation of sentence:
10.1 The seriousness of the offence which was prevalent.
10.2 That the appellant had not been remorseful and only admitted to
stabbing the complainant more than once during cross-examination.
This was an indication that he was not accepting full responsibility for
his actions.
10.3 The knife used was very large.
Page 5
10.4 The heinous nature of the assault was evident by the intestines that
were displaced outside the body of the victim.
10.5 The fact that the complainant suffered gruesome injuries that are still
stripping him from any meaningful quality of life was also seen as
aggravating.
[11] It is trite that sentencing is primarily a matter for the discretion of the trial court
and that a court of appeal should only intervene if there has been a material
misdirection and if the sentence imposed induces a sense of shock or is
disturbingly inappropriate1. I considering these aspects, a court of appeal
must decide whether the trial court has, in imposing sentence, exercised its
discretion judicially and properly2.
[12] Having considered the seriousness of the assault and the devastating
consequences it has had on the victim and his family, the sentence imposed
does not induce a sense of shock. In addition, no material misdirection has
taken place.
[13] The Court is satisfied that all relevant considerations were taken into account,
including the period spent in prison awaiting trial, and therefore no basis for
intervening has been established .
[14] In the premises the appeal against sentence is dismissed .
1 S v Rabie 1975 (1) SA 855(A) at 857 E-F
2 S v Pil/ay 1977 (4) SA 531 (A) at 535E-G
LABUSCHAGNE J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
I agree
N DAVIS
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Date of Hearing: 29 April 2026
Judgment delivered : 2<May 2026
APPEARANCES :
For the Appellant:
Attorney for the Appellant:
For the Respondent:
Attorney for the Respondent:
Ms S Simpson
Attorneys , Pretoria
Adv K T Rancho
Page6
Director of Public Prosecutions, Pretoria