IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA 
(WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

In the matter between: 

and

ZONDI, J

The evidence which forms the basis of the appellant's conviction and sentence was briefly as follows. Alfonso Bredenkamp and the deceased went to see the appellant at the latter's request on 17 April 2008 at about 11 o'clock in the morning. The appellant had sent Denver Petersen to call them. On his arrival at the appellant's place, he found the appellant, Llewllyn. The deceased was already at the scene when Alfonso arrived. The appellant wanted to know who had taken his money. He told the appellant it was not htm. The appellant got angry. The deceased also denied to have taken the appellant's money.

Denver assisted the appellant to push the deceased into the toilet and the appellant locked it. While the deceased was locked inside the toilet, the appellant sent Llewllyn to buy petrol. Llewllyn returned with petrol, the appellant took it and poured it inside the toilet under the door. At that stage the witness, who was standing some 12 metres away from the toilet, as he wanted to distance himself away from the occurrence and Denver and Llewllyn watched on. The witness happened to have on him a box of matches The appellant, after pouring petrol inside the toilet, asked for matches. The witness took out a matchbox which contained about six matchsticks and handed it to the appellant. The appellant lit a matchstick and thereafter threw it inside the toilet in which the deceased was. The petrol ignited. The appellant thereafter ran away.
He returned later. When he heard the deceased screaming, the appellant told the witness to go get the toilet keys which he did. He tried to open the lock, but as at that stage the door handle was too hot to handle and he stepped back. Eventually someone was able to open the toilet and rescued the deceased. The deceased got out and went home while the witness, the appellant and others remained behind and smoked TIK. During cross-examination he denied that he helped appellant push the deceased into the toilet. He also denied that they smoked pipe after Denver had poured petrol into the toilet on the appellant's instruction.

Denver Petersen confirmed that on the day in question he was asked by the appellant to call Alfonso and the deceased in order to confront them about some money that went missing. Present at the scene were him, Alfonso, the deceased and Llewllyn. Alfonso and the deceased denied that they had anything to do with the missing money. The appellant was angry and he asked him to get him an empty bottle, which he did. The appellant hit the deceased with an empty bottle According to the witness nobody assisted the appellant to push the deceased into the toilet. After forcing the deceased into the toilet, the appellant sent the witness to go fetch a padlock from the appellant's house, which he did. The appellant took the padlock and locked the toilet with the deceased inside.

It may be so that Alfonso and Denver were accomplices to the extent that either the one or the other might have abated the appellant in either pouring petrol inside the toilet or forcing the deceased into the toilet, or providing matches with which to ignite petrol. Even if they were accomplices, as suggested by the appellant, I am in agreement with the trial court's treatment of their evidence and its findings arising therefrom. The trial court which had an advantage to observe Alfonso and Denver when they testified, commented favourably on their demeanour Even if Alfonso and Denver were accomplices as suggested by the appellant, in my view their evidence met the requirements of the cautionary rule.

Denver corroborated Alfonso's evidence insofar as he explained the motive for the attack on the deceased by the appellant. The picture which emerged from their evidence is that the appellant masterminded the death of the deceased and he did so with a requisite intent.

According to the medico-legal report, the deceased suffered 60% burns. The wounds extended over the face, the neck, the flexor, extensor surfaces of both arms, the posterior and anterior aspects of both legs, the dorsal aspects of both feet and the plantar aspect of the right foot. He later died in hospital from these wounds. The crime with which the appellant was charged, was subject to the provision of the Minimum Sentence Act, which means that upon conviction he faced the prospect of being sentenced to 15 years imprisonment in the absence of there being substantial and compelling circumstances.

ZONDI, J:    So it is ordered.

ZONDI, J