Kgwedi and Others S (A898/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 995 (6 November 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 995
- Status
- Order
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Msimeki, Potterill, Tuchten
- Case number
- A898/2013
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Msimeki, Potterill, Tuchten
- Case number
- A898/2013
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that there was a misdirection in the original sentencing, specifically regarding the date of sentence and the omission of reference to counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2. The sentences imposed on counts 1, 3 and 4 were set aside and replaced with new sentences. The sentences on counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2 were confirmed. The court ordered that the sentences on counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2, and counts 3 and 4 for accused 3 and 4, shall run concurrently with the sentence on count 1. All sentences were antedated to 20 March 1997.
Court disposition
The appeal against sentence in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 succeeds; sentences on counts 1, 3 and 4 are set aside and replaced; sentences on counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2 are confirmed; sentences are ordered to run concurrently and antedated to 20 March 1997.
Orders
- Accused 3's appeal against conviction is dismissed.
- The appeal against the sentences imposed on the four accused by the court a quo in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 succeeds.
- The sentences imposed on the four accused by the court a quo in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 are set aside and replaced with the following sentences: Accused 1: Count 1 (Murder): 25 years imprisonment; Count 3 (Housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery with aggravating circumstances): 10 years imprisonment; Count 4 (Attempted murder): 10 years imprisonment. Effectively 25 years imprisonment. Accused 2: 35 years imprisonment; Count 3: 15 years imprisonment; Count 4: 15 years imprisonment. Effectively 35 years imprisonment.
- The sentences on counts 5 and 6 in respect of accused 1 and 2 are confirmed.
- It is ordered that the sentences on counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 in respect of accused 1 and 2 shall run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.
- It is ordered that the sentences in respect of counts 3 and 4 in respect of accused 3 and 4 shall run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.
- The sentences are antedated to 20 March 1997.
02
Material facts
Parties
Alfred Kgwedi
AppellantElliot Komani
AppellantEddie Baloyi
AppellantHermando Sibiya
AppellantThe State
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Accused 1 Count 1 (murder): ZAR 25
- Accused 1 Count 3 (housebreaking and Robbery): ZAR 10
- Accused 1 Count 4 (attempted Murder): ZAR 10
- Accused 2 Total: ZAR 35
- Accused 2 Count 3: ZAR 15
- Accused 2 Count 4: ZAR 15
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Correction of Sentence
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the date of sentence should be antedated to 20 March 1997 instead of 19 March 1997.
- 02
Whether counts 5 and 6 were properly referred to in respect of accused 1 and 2.
- 03
Whether the sentences imposed on counts 1, 3 and 4 should be set aside and replaced.
- 04
Whether the sentences on counts 5 and 6 in respect of accused 1 and 2 should be confirmed.
- 05
Whether the sentences should run concurrently and be antedated.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants argued that the court a quo misdirected itself in sentencing, specifically regarding the dates and the treatment of counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2. They sought correction of the sentence to reflect the proper antedating and concurrent running of sentences.
- Respondent
- The respondent conceded the errors identified by the Registrar and agreed that the necessary corrections should be made to the judgment, including the antedating of the sentence and confirmation of sentences on counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A)
The triad in sentencing requires consideration of the crime, the offender, and the interests of society.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that there was a misdirection in the original sentencing, specifically regarding the date of sentence and the omission of reference to counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2. The sentences imposed on counts 1, 3 and 4 were set aside and replaced with new sentences. The sentences on counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2 were confirmed. The court ordered that the sentences on counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2, and counts 3 and 4 for accused 3 and 4, shall run concurrently with the sentence on count 1. All sentences were antedated to 20 March 1997.
Obiter and limits
- The Registrar's attention to detail in identifying errors in the judgment is appreciated.
- The correction of sentence ensures that justice is properly served and the record accurately reflects the court's intention.
Court disposition
The appeal against sentence in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 succeeds; sentences on counts 1, 3 and 4 are set aside and replaced; sentences on counts 5 and 6 for accused 1 and 2 are confirmed; sentences are ordered to run concurrently and antedated to 20 March 1997.
- Accused 3's appeal against conviction is dismissed.
- The appeal against the sentences imposed on the four accused by the court a quo in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 succeeds.
- The sentences imposed on the four accused by the court a quo in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 are set aside and replaced with the following sentences: Accused 1: Count 1 (Murder): 25 years imprisonment; Count 3 (Housebreaking with intent to rob and robbery with aggravating circumstances): 10 years imprisonment; Count 4 (Attempted murder): 10 years imprisonment. Effectively 25 years imprisonment. Accused 2: 35 years imprisonment; Count 3: 15 years imprisonment; Count 4: 15 years imprisonment. Effectively 35 years imprisonment.
- The sentences on counts 5 and 6 in respect of accused 1 and 2 are confirmed.
- It is ordered that the sentences on counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 in respect of accused 1 and 2 shall run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.
- It is ordered that the sentences in respect of counts 3 and 4 in respect of accused 3 and 4 shall run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.
- The sentences are antedated to 20 March 1997.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Order
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA /ES
(GAUTENG DIVISION. PRETORIA)
NOT
REPORTABLE
NOT
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
CASE NUMBER: A898/2013
DATE:6/11/2015
IN
THE MATIER BETWEEN
1. ALFRED KGWEDI 1st APPELLANT (Accused Iin court a quo)
2. ELLIOT KOMANI 2nd APPELLANT (Accused 2 in court a quo)
3.
EDDIE BALOYI 4th APPELLANT (Accused 3 incourt a quo)
4.
HERMANDO SIBIYA
3rd APPELLANT(Accused 4 incourt a quo)
AND
THE
STATE
RESPONDENT
CORRECTION : SENTENCE
MSIMEKI. J
[1] The Registrar of the court Ms Beena Bhana on 30 October 2015 brought it to my attention that:
1. The date of sentence should have been antedated to 20 March 1997 instead of 19 March 1997. This is indeed correct.
2. Counts 5 and 6 were not referred to in respect of accused 1 and 2. This is also correct. Ithank the Registrar.
[2] The omissions have necessitated the following amendments to the following pantgrapm of my judgment which I handed down on 21 October 2015;
1. Paragraph [47] which should now read:
"The court a quo' s misdirection on sentence means that the appeal against sentence in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 should succeed while the sentence in respect of counts 5 and 6 which relate to accused 1 and 2 should be confirmed."
2. Paragraph [48] which should now read:
"[48]1. Having had regard to the triad referred to in S v Zinn, supra, and all the factors relevant to sentence I make the following order:
I. Accused 3's appeal against conviction is dismissed.
2. The appeal against the sentences imposed on the four accused by the court a quo in respect of counts I , 3 and
3. The sentences imposed on the four accused by the court a quo in respect of counts 1, 3 and 4 are set aside and replaced with the following sentences:
ACCUSED I
I. COUNT I : MURDER
You are sentenced to 25 years imprisonment.
2. COUNT 3: HOUSEBREAKING WITH THE INTENTION TO ROB AND ROBBERY WITH
AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
You are sentenced to I 0 years imprisonment.
3. COUNT 4: ATTEMPTED MURDER
You are sentenced to IO years imprisonment.
Effectively you are sentenced to 25 years imprisonment.
ACCUSED 2
You are sentenced to 35 years imprisonment. COUNT 3
You are sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. COUNT 4
You are sentenced to 15 years imprisonment.
Effectively you are sentenced to 35 years imprisonment.
ACCUSED 3
COUNT 1
4. The sentences on cow1ts 5 mid 6 in respettof accused I and 2 are confirmed.
5. It is ordered that the sentences on counts 3, 4, 5 and 6 in respect of accused I and 2 shall run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.
6. It is ordered that the sentences in respect of counts 3 and 4 in respect of accused 3 and 4 shall run concurrently with the sentence on count 1.
7. The sentences are antedated to 20 March 1997.
M
W MSIMEKI
JUDGE OF THE GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
I agree
S
POTTERILL
N
TUCHTEN
HEARD ON:
FOR THE APPELLANTS: INSTRUCTED BY:
FOR THE RESPONDENT: INSTRUCTED BY:
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.