THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case No: 696/2019
In the matter between:

ANDILE LUNGISA
APPELLANT

and

THE STATE
RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:   Lungisa v The State (Case no 696/2019) [2020] ZASCA 99
(9 September 2020)
Coram:
MAYA P and DAMBUZA and NICHOLLS JJA and WEINER and
MABINDLA-BOQWANA AJJA
Heard:
Matter disposed without oral hearing in terms of s 19(a) of
the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.

Delivered: This judgment was handed
down electronically by circulation to
the parties’ legal representatives by
email, publication on the Supreme
Court of Appeal website and release to
SAFLII. The date and time for hand-
down is deemed to be 15h00 on
9 September 2020.

Ukuwiswa: Esi
sigwebo
sawiswa
ngeintanethi, ngokusiwa kubathetheleli
bamacala
onke
ngeimeyili,
nangokupapashwa
kwisiza
sonxi-
belelwano
seNkundla
yeziBheno
ePhakamileyo
nangokufakwa
ku-
SAFLII. Umhla nexesha lokuwiswa
kwaso uthathwa njengokuba ngulo:
ngu-15h00
ngomhla
we-9
kweyo
Msintsi ka 2020.
Summary: Sentence – appeal against
imposition of effective sentence of two
years’ imprisonment for assault with
intent to cause grievous bodily harm to
fellow municipal councillor – whether
trial
court
exercised
discretion
improperly – whether sentence is
disproportionate – appeal dismissed.

Isishwankathelo: Isohlwayo – isibheno
esichasa
ukunikwa
kwesohlwayo
sokuvalelwa entolongweni iminyaka
emibini epheleleyo ngenxa yokuhlasela
ngenjongo
yokwenzakalisa
kakubi
emzimbeni ugxa wakhe ongomnye
wooceba bakwamasipala – ingaba
inkundla eyavavanya ityala yasebenzisa
ilungelo
layo
lokwenza
isigqibo
ngokungafanelekanga na – ingaba
isohlwayo sigqithisile na – isibheno
sachithwa.

ORDER

UMYALELO

On
appeal
from:
Eastern
Cape
Division
of
the
High
Court,
Grahamstown (Roberson J and Renqe
AJ (concurring) sitting as a court of
appeal):

1.  Condonation for the late filing of the
appellant’s notice of appeal is
granted.
2. Condonation for the late filing of the
respondent’s heads of argument is
granted.
3. The appeal is dismissed.

Kwisibheno
esivela:
KwiSahlulo
SeNkundla ePhakamileyo SaseMpuma
Koloni, eGrahamstown (NguRoberson J
noRenqe AJ (bevumelana) behleli
njengenkundla yesibheno):

1.
Isicelo
sombheni
sokuxolelwa
kokungeniswa
kade
kwesaziso
sakhe sokubhena siyavunyelwa.
2. Isicelo somphenduli sokuxolelwa
kokungeniswa kade kwezihloko
zakhe zengxoxo siyavunyelwa.
3.   Isibheno siyachithwa.

JUDGMENT

ISIGWEBO

Mabindla-Boqwana AJA (Maya P
and Dambuza and Nicholls JJA and
Weiner AJA concurring):
NguMabindla-Boqwana AJA
(uMaya P noDambuza noNicholls
JJA noWeiner AJA bevumelana):

[1]  The appellant, Mr Andile Lungisa,
appeared before the Port Elizabeth
Magistrates’ Court (Mr Cannon) on a
charge of assault with intent to cause
grievous bodily harm. He pleaded not
guilty
to
the
charge
and
was
subsequently convicted of that charge
on 17 April 2018. On 9 May 2018 he
was
sentenced
to
three
years’
imprisonment, of which one year was
suspended for a period of five years on
condition that he was not convicted of
assault with intent to cause grievous
bodily harm or assault, committed
during the period of suspension.

[1] Umbheni, uMnu. Andile Lungisa,
wayevele
phambi
kweNkundla
yeeMantyi yaseBhayi (kuMnu. Cannon)
emangangalelwe
ngokuhlasela
ngenjongo
yokwenzakalisa
kakubi
emzimbeni. Waliphika ityala, waza
emva koko wafunyanwa enalo elotyala
ngowe-17 kuTshaz’iimpuzi ka-2018.
Ngowe-9 kuCanzibe ka-2018 wanikwa
isohlwayo sokuvalelwa entolongweni
iminyaka emithathu, ekwathi unyaka
omnye kuloo minyaka waxhonywa
ithuba eliyiminyaka emihlanu, phantsi
komqathango
wokuba
engasayi
kufunyanwa
kwakhona
enetyala
lokuhlasela ngenjongo yokwenzakalisa
kakubi emzimbeni okanye elokuhlasela,
ekwenza
ngelixesha
lokuxhonywa
kwawo.

[2] With the leave of the Eastern Cape
Division
of
the
High
Court,
Grahamstown (the high court), he
appealed against both his conviction
and sentence. His appeal was dismissed
on 2 April 2019 and the high court only
adjusted the condition attached to the
suspended portion of his sentence.1 He
thereafter lodged a petition with this
Court and was granted special leave to
appeal against his sentence only, on
27 May 2019.

[2] Wathi ke ngemvume yeSahlulo
seNkundla ePhakamileyo yaseMpuma
Koloni,
eGrahamstown
(inkundla
ephakamileyo),
wabhena
ngakwisigwebo esi sokuba netyala,
kwanesohlwayo
eso
wayesinikiwe.
Isibheno sakhe sachithwa ngowesi-2
kuTshaz’iimpuzi
ka-2019
yaza
inkundla
yalungelelanisa
nje
lamqathango
uhamba
nalaandawo
ixhonyiweyo yesohlwayo sakhe. Uye
emva koko wafaka isicelo sokubhena
kuleNkundla, waza wanikwa imvume
ekhethekileyo
yokuba
abhene
ngakwisohlwayo kuphela, ngowama-27
kuCanzibe ka-2019.

[3]  The parties agreed to have the
appeal determined without the hearing
of oral argument in terms of s 19(a) of
the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (the
Superior Courts Act). An issue to be
disposed of before consideration of the
[3] 
Umbheni
kunye
nombuso
bavumelana
ukuba
isibheno
eso
siqwalaselwe
kungakhange
kuviwe
zingxoxo
mpikiswano

ngqo
ngokomlomo,
oko
kusenziwa
ngokwemimiselo  yesolotya elingu

1 By adding the words ‘and for which the accused is sentenced to unsuspended imprisonment without the option of
the fine.’

Ngokufakela la mazwi: ‘asinikelwa yona umtyholwa lo isohlwayo sokuvalelwa entolongweni kungaxhonywa ndawo
yaso kungekho nethuba lokuhlawula umdliwo.’

merits of the appeal relates to two
condonation applications brought by
both parties, one pertaining to the late
filing of the notice of appeal by the
appellant and the other relating to the
late filing of the heads of argument by
the respondent. Both applications were
unopposed and, having perused the
relevant affidavits, I am satisfied that
good cause has been shown for
condonation to be granted.

s19(a) woMthetho
weeNkundla
eziNgentla we-10 ka-2013 (uMthetho
weeNkundla
eziNgentla).

Umba
ekufuneka kuqalwe ngawo phambi
kokunika ingqalelo kwinkqu yesibheno
esi

zizicelo
ezibini
zoxolelo
ezingeniswe ngawo omabini amaqela,
omnye uphathelele nokungeniswa kade
kwesaziso
sokubhena
ngumbheni,
omnye ingulowo wokungeniswa kade
kwezihloko zengxoxo ngumphenduli.
Zozibini ezi zicelo zange kubekho cala
liziphikisayo;
ke,
ndakuba
ndiwagocagocile
amaxwebhu
obungqina,
ndanelisekile
kukuba
zikhona izizathu ezivakalayo zokuba
eziziphene zixolelwe.

[4]  The appellant’s conviction ema-
nates from events which took place in
the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality
Council (the Council) chamber at a
meeting held on 27 October 2016.  At
that meeting the appellant, who is a
member of the African National
Congress (ANC) and was, at the time of
[4]   Ukufunyaniswa enetyala kombheni
lo
kususela
kwizehlo
ezenzeka
kwigumbi
leBhunga
lika-Masipala
waseNelson Mandela Bay (iBhunga)
kwiintlanganiso eyayibanjwe ngomhla
wama-27
kweyeDwarha
ngo-2016.
Kuloo ntlanganiso umbheni lo, olilungu
lombutho i-African National Congress

the incident, its leader in the Council,
grievously assaulted one Mr Ryno
Kayser (the complainant), a Democratic
Alliance (DA) councillor. The incident,
which was recorded by Mr Ronaldo
Gouws, also a DA councillor, on his cell
phone, occurred during a debate
involving the conduct of another ANC
Councillor, Mr Sabani, at a previous
meeting. Due to the fact that a matter
concerning him was to be discussed, the
Speaker, Mr Jonathan Lawack had
requested Mr Sabani to leave the
Chamber. Mr Sabani refused to do so
causing the Speaker to call for security
personnel to remove him. Security
members
were
prevented
from
approaching Mr Sabani by certain
members of the Council, including the
appellant.

(i-ANC)
nowaye,
ngelo
xesha
kusenzeka lento, eyinkokheli yawo lo
mbutho
phaya
kwelaaBhunga,
wahlasela ngokuyingozi uMnu. Ryno
Kayser
(ummangali),
uceba
weDemocratic Alliance (i-DA). Esi
sehlo, esathi sashicelelwa nguMnu.
Ronaldo Gouws, naye enguceba we-
DA, kumnxeba wakhe oyiselula, sehla
ngexesha lengxoxo-mpikiswano eyayi-
malunga   nokuziphatha komnye uceba
we-ANC,
uMnu.
Sabani,
kwintlanganiso
eyayingaphambili.
Ngenxa yokuba kwakuza kuxoxwa
ngomba omalunga naye, uSomlomo,
uMnu. Jonathan Lawack, wayemcelile
uMnu. Sabani ukuba aphume kulo
iGumbi elo. UMnu. Sabani wala
ukwenjenjalo, nto leyo eyabangela
ukuba uSomlomo abize abezokhuselo
ukuza
kumkhupha.
Amalungu
ezokhuselo athintelwa ukuba asondele
kuMnu. Sabani ngamalungu athile
eBhunga
elo,
ekwakukho
kuwo
nombheni lo.

[5] A
motion
which
caused
consternation among ANC councillors
was adopted by the Council in respect
of Mr Sabani. The meeting then
descended into chaos. At this point, the
appellant and another ANC councillor,
Mr Feni, approached the Speaker’s
precinct. Mr Feni grabbed the Speaker
by the arm and the complainant moved
towards
the
Speaker’s
table
to
intervene. It is at this stage that the
appellant hit the complainant on his
head with a glass jug filled with water.
The complainant fell to the ground and
bled profusely. He became unconscious
and was taken to hospital, where he
received
medical
treatment.
He
sustained a three centimetre long, one
centimetre deep laceration with an
underlying haematoma on the left
temple, a small flap laceration on the
left ear, multiple linear abrasions (about
five to ten centimetres long) on the left
side of the neck from which pieces of
glass had to be surgically removed, and
a ‘deep’ four centimetre long abrasion
[5]   Kwabakho ke isiphakamiso
esabangela ukunxunguphala phakathi
kooceba be-ANC esathi samkelwa
liBhunga ngokubhekise kuMnu. Sabani.
Intlanganiso ke ngoku yasuka yaba
ngumbhodamo.
Kwesi
sithuba,
umbheni lo kunye nomnye uceba we-
ANC, uMnu. Feni, baya ngakwiqonga
likaSomlomo. UMnu. Feni wanqakula
uSomlomo ngengalo waza ummangali
wasondela ngasetafileni kaSomlomo
ukuya
kungenelela.
Kwaba
kwesi
sithuba ke apho umbheni lo wabetha
ummangali entloko ngejagi yegilasi
ezele
amanzi.
Ummangali
wawa
phantsi, wopha ngamandla. Wakhe
wemkelwa ziingqondo waza wasiwa
esibhedlele, apho wafumana unyango
loogqirha. Waba nenxeba elinzulu
elinokudlakazeka,
elibude
buzii-
sentimitha
ezintathu,
nobunzulu
obuyisentimitha enye, likwanalo negazi
elenze ihlwili apha ngaphantsi kwalo,
kwintlafuno   yasekhohlo, kwabakho
nelinye inxeba lokukrazuka endlebeni
yasekhohlo, imigruzuko emininzi ebude

on the upper chest. The laceration on his
left temple was sutured.

(bumalunga neesentimitha ezintlanu
ukuya kutsho kwezilishumi) kwicala
langasekhohlo
lentamo
apho
kwakhutshwa
iingceba
zegilasi
ngokusikwa
athungwe;
kwabakho
nenxeba
‘elinzulu’
eliziisentimitha
ezine kumantla   esifuba. Laa mgruzuko
ukwintlafuno yasekhohlo wathungwa.

[6]  In convicting the appellant, the trial
court found the appellant to have been
an extremely poor witness who tailored
his version as the trial progressed. The
high court echoed the findings of the
trial court and confirmed the appellant’s
conviction
in
its
well-reasoned
judgment.  As to sentence, the trial court
expressed that a non-custodial sentence
would be inappropriate as it ‘would
over-emphasise the personal circum-
stances of the accused to the detriment
of the seriousness and prevalence of the
offence, as well as the community
interest
and the
interest of
the
complainant.’ It observed that despite
the appellant being a first offender, he
[6] Ekumfumaneni enetyala umbheni,
inkundla
eyayivavanya
elityala
yamfumanisa
umbheni
elingqina
elibuthathaka gqitha elamane ukulakha
elalo icala lebali ngokuya kuqhubeka
ukuthethwa
kwetyala.
Inkundla
ephakamileyo
yazingqina
iziphumo
zenkundla
ebivavanya
elityala,
yakuqinisekisa ukufunyanwa kombheni
enetyala,
kwisigwebo
sayo
esasizathuzelwe
kakuhle.
Malunga
nesohlwayo, inkundla eyayivavanya
ityala yavakalisa ukuba isohlwayo
sangaphandle kwejele sasiya kuba
sesingafanelekanga njengoko ‘sasiya
kusuke sigxininise gqitha ekuboneleleni
iimeko zobuqu zalo ungumtyholwa, ize

was convicted of a serious crime. The
high court declined to interfere with the
trial
court’s
sentencing
discretion
holding that, whilst the sentence was
robust, in its view, the difference
between what it would have imposed
and the actual sentence imposed by the
trial court was not so significant as to
justify its interference.

loonto
ikhokelele
kumngcipheko
wokuba bungasiwa so ububi bolu
lwaphulo-mthetho
nokuxhaphaka
kwalo, kanti nokulungelwa kwabantu
ekuhlaleni,
nokulungelwa
kommangali.’ Inkundla leyo yatsho
nokuthi,
nakuba
umbheni
lo
wayesisaphuli-mthetho esiqalayo, eli
tyala wayefunyenwe enalo lityala elibi,
elinobuzaza. Inkundla ephakamileyo ke
yala ukuphazamisana nendlela eye
yabona ngayo inkundla eyayivavanya
elityala isithi, nangona isohlwayo eso
siqatha, ngokwembono yayo, umahluko
phakathi kwesohlwayo ebiyakusiwisa
yona kunye nesosohlwayo siwisiweyo
yinkundla
eyavavanya
ityala,
wawungemkhulu ngokwaneleyo ukuba
kuthetheleleke ukusiphazamisa esaa
sigqibo salaankundla yokuqala.

[7]  The essence of the appeal is that the
sentence imposed by the trial court is
shockingly inappropriate in that the trial
court did not properly balance the
personal circumstances of the appellant
[7] Oyena ndoqo wesi sibheno yile
ndawo ithi isohlwayo esanikwa yin-
kundla
eyavavanya

ityala
sinokungafaneleki
ngendlela
eyothusayo, kuba loo nkundla zange

with the seriousness of the offence and
interests of society, leading to a
misdirection which merits interference
by this Court. It was particularly
contended
that
the
trial
court
downplayed the achievements of the
appellant and the fact that he has a wife
and children to look after. Further, it did
not consider that the event happened in
‘a moment of madness’ and was ‘a spur
of the moment’ attack, albeit serious
and brutal. It was submitted that the
appellant was sacrificed at the altar of
deterrence and that a higher standard
was applied in assessing his blame-
worthiness because of his high political
profile than would have been applied to
an ordinary person. Counsel for the
appellant suggested that an appropriate
sentence in these circumstances would
be correctional supervision in terms of
s 276(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure
Act 51 of 1977 (the Criminal Procedure
Act)2 or, if this court finds that a
yenze
mlinganiso
ufanelekileyo
phakathi kweemeko zobuqu zombheni
nobubi, nobuzaza bolwaphulo-mthetho
olo kwanokulungelwa koluntu, nto leyo
ikhokelele
ekubeni
kwenzeke
ulahlekiso-mthethweni olukufaneleyo
ukuphazanyiswa yileNkundla. Eyona
nto
kwaxhwithwana
ngayo
ngokukodwa
kukuba
inkundla
eyavavanya ityala yazithatha kancinci
izenzo
zempumelelo
zombheni
kwanokuba
unomfazi
nabantwana
abaxhomekeke kuye.  Ngaphezulu,
ayizange iyithathele ngqalelo into
yokuba esisehlo senzeka ‘ngethutyana
lokuba buphambana’ saye sasiluhlaselo
olwasuka
lwazigqabhukela
ngaloo
mzuzu,
nakuba
eneneni
luyinto
enobuzaza kwakunye noburhalarhume.
Kwathiwa ke umbheni unqunqelwe
egoqweni
ekuthiwa
luthintelo-bubi,
kwaza kwasetyenziswa umgangatho
ongqwabalala
kakhulu
kunokuba
kufuneka ekujongeni ukuba nobutyala

2 Section 276(1)(h) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for correctional supervision as one of the forms of
punishment which a sentencing court can impose on a convicted person. Correctional supervision is defined in s 1 of
the Criminal Procedure Act as ‘a community based sentence to which a person is subject in accordance with Chapter
V and VI of the Correctional Service Act, 1998, and the regulations made under that Act . . .’ The term is defined in

custodial sentence is necessary, a
sentence in terms of s 276(1)(i) of that
Act.3

kwakhe, loo nto isenziwa liwonga lakhe
eliphezulu ngokwepolitiki, kunokuba
bekuya
kwenziwa
kumntu
njee.
Umthetheleli wombheni waphakamisa
ukuba isohlwayo esifanelekileyo kwezi
meko
sesokugwetyelwa
ngaphantsi
kweliso
labezoBulungisa
ngokwemimiselo
yecandelo
lama-
276(1)(h)
loMthetho
weeNkqubo
zoLwaphulo-mthetho
wama-51
ka-
1977
okanye,
ukuba
le
nkundla
ifumanisa
ukuba
isohlwayo
esinentolongo siyafuneka, sisohlwayo
ngokwemimiselo
yecandelo
lama-
276(1)(i) lawo looMthetho.

the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 as ‘a form of community corrections contemplated in Chapter VI.’ This,
amongst other objectives, affords sentenced offenders an opportunity to serve their sentences in a non-custodial
manner.

ICandelo lama-276(1)(h) loMthetho weeNkqubo zoLwaphulo-mthetho libonelela ukugadwa kwabo banobutyala
benziswe imisebenzi ethile njengenye yeendlela zesohlwayo esisenokumiselwa yinkundla eyenza loonto. Isohlwayo
sokugadwa ngabeSebe lezoBulungisa sichazwe kwicandelo 1 loMthetho weeNkqubo zoLwaphulo-mthetho ngokuba
sisohlwayo sokusebenza phakathi koluntu ngokwezahluko zesi-V nesi-VI zoMthetho weeNkonzo zezoBulungisa,
1998, kunye nemigaqo eyenziwe phantsi koMthetho lowo . . .’ Eligama lichazwe kuMthetho weeNkonzo
zezoBulungisa we-111 ka-1998 kwathiwa, ‘uhlobo oluthile lwezilungiso ezenzelwa phakathi koluntu oluqingqwe
kwiSahluko sesi-VI.’ Le, phakathi kwezinye iinjongo-kwenza, inika aboni abanikwe isohlwayo ithuba lokuphumeza
izohlwayo zabo ngendlela ebagcina bengayi entolongweni.

3 Section 276(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides for imprisonment from which a convicted person may be
placed under correctional supervision in the discretion of the Commissioner or a parole board.

ICandelo lama-276(1) (i) loMthetho weeNkqubo zoLwaphulo-mthetho libonelela ngendlela yokuvalelwa anokuthi xa
esuka kuyo umntu obefunyenwe enetyala abekwe phantsi kokugadwa ngabeSebe ngabezoBulungisa ngokubona
kukaKhomishinari okanye ibhodi yezoxolelo.

[8]  It is a well-established sentencing
principle that the determination of
sentence is principally a matter for the
trial court’s discretion.4  Grounds upon
which a court of appeal may interfere
with a sentence imposed by a trial court
are confined. The approach to be
followed by the appellate court when
dealing with sentence has been stated in
many judgments of this Court. It was
aptly summarised in S v Hewitt5 as
follows:
‘An appellate court may not interfere with [the
discretion of the trial court] merely because it
would have imposed a different sentence. In
other words, it is not enough to conclude that
its own choice of penalty would have
been an appropriate penalty. Something more
is required; it must conclude that its own
choice of penalty is the appropriate penalty and
that the penalty chosen by the trial court is not.
Thus, the appellate court must be satisfied that
the trial court committed a misdirection of
such a nature, degree and seriousness that
shows that it did not exercise its sentencing
discretion at all or exercised it improperly or
[8] Ngumgqaliselo ekudala wasekwayo
ukuba
ukuqingqwa
kwesohlwayo
ngumbandela
oselungelweni
lwenkundla eyavavanya ityala. Izizathu
enokuthi
inkundla
yezibheno
iphazamisane
ngazo
nesohlwayo
esinikwe yinkundla evavanya ityala
zimbalwa.
Inkqubo
elandelwa
yinkundla
yezibheno
xa
iphethe
isohlwayo ixeliwe kwizigwebo ezininzi
zaleNkundla.
Yashwankathelwa
ngokuchanekileyo ku- S v Hewitt ngolu
hlobo lulandelayo:
‘Inkundla
yezibheno mayingaphazamisani
[nelungelo
lokwenza
isigqibo
lenkundla
eyavavanya ityala] ngesizathwana njee sokuba
yona ibiyakunika isohlwayo esahlukileyo.
Ngamanye
amazwi,
akwanele
ukugqiba
kwelokuba isohlwayo esikhethwe yiyo siso
ebesiya kuba sisohlwayo esifanelekileyo.
Kufuneka into ethe chatha; kufuneka igqibe
ukuba isohlwayo esikhethwe yiyo sesona
sohlwayo
sifanelekileyo
kwanokuba
isohlwayo
ebesikhethwe
yinkundla
ebivavanya ityala asisiso esifanelekileyo.
Ngoko, inkundla yezibheno kufuneka izanelise

4 S v Sadler [2000] ZASCA 13; 2 All SA 121 (A) para 8.
5 S v Hewitt [2016] ZASCA 100; 2017 (1) SACR 309 (SCA) para 8.

unreasonably
when
imposing
it.
So,
interference is justified only where there exists
a ‘striking’ or ‘startling’ or ‘disturbing’
disparity between the trial court’s sentence and
that which the appellate court would have
imposed. And in such instances the trial court’s
discretion is regarded as having been
unreasonably
exercised.’
(Footnotes
omitted)
The appellate court must, therefore,
determine whether there is any basis for
interference on those circumscribed
grounds.

ukuba
inkundla
evavanye
ityala
yenze
ulahlekiso-mthethweni oluluhlobo, isigaba
nobuzaza ezibonakalisa ukuba, ayikhange
ilisebenzise ilungelo lokwenza isigqibo konke-
konke
okanye
yalisebenzisa
ngendlela
engafanelekanga okanye engacingeliyo xa
yayinika
isohlwayo
eso.
Ngoko
ke,
uphazamiso luthetheleleka kuphela apho
kukho ukwahlukana ‘okugqamileyo’ okanye
‘okothusayo’ okanye ‘okunxubisayo’ phakathi
kwesohlwayo senkundla eyavavanya ityala
neso
ibiyakusinika
inkundla
yezibheno.
Kwizehlo ezinjalo ke, ilungelo lokwenza
isigqibo lenkundla evavanye ityala lithathwa
njengelisetyenziswe
ngendlela
engacingeliyo.’ (Amanqakwana ange-
zantsi ashiyiwe.)
Inkundla yezibheno imele, ke ngoko,
ukuba ijonge ukuba ingaba sikhona na
isizathu sokuphazamisana nesohlwayo
kuloo mida isikiweyo.

[9] In exercising its discretion, the trial
court must weigh both mitigating and
aggravating factors, focused on the
nature of the crime, the personal
circumstances of the offender and the
interests of society. As indicated above,
[9] Ekusebenziseni
ilungelo
layo
lokwenza isigqibo inkundla evavanya
ityala
kufuneka
ivelele
iimeko
ezibunciphisayo
ubutyala
nezo
zibongezayo, iqwalasele   ukuba lityala
elinjani, neemeko zobuqu zomaphuli-

the contention in this case, is that
although the offence committed by the
appellant was particularly serious, the
trial court accorded insufficient weight
to the personal circumstances and
exaggerated the moral blameworthiness
of the appellant.

mthetho
lowo,
kunye
neemeko
zokulungelwa
koluntu
ngokubanzi. Njengoko
sekuxeliwe
ngasentla apha, isikhalazo sombheni
kweli tyala, kukuba nakuba ulwaphulo-
mthetho
lwakhe
lwalunobuzaza
ngendlela
eyodwa,
inkundla
eyavavanya ityala, iimeko zobuqu
zakhe
zange
izinike
ukubaluleka
okwaneleyo, yakubaxa nokuziphatha
kwakhe.

[10]   The appellant was 38 years old at
the time of sentencing. He is married
with seven children. He is gainfully
employed as a municipal councillor and
as an ad hoc writer. His parents and
siblings are also dependent on him. His
achievements
and
contribution
to
society as a political activist have
gained him the respect of many within
his community. It was submitted on the
appellant’s behalf that he was respected
by a number of his fellow councillors,
had a good relationship with the
complainant prior to the assault incident
[10]  Umbheni wayeneminyaka engama
-38
ubudala
ngexesha
enikwa
isohlwayo esi. Utshatile, enabantwana
abasixhenxe. Uqeshiwe ngokunenzuzo
njengoceba
wakwamasipala
ekwangumbhali
wamaxesha
ngamaxesha.
Abazali
bakhe
kwanabantakwabo
bakwaxhomekeke
kuye. Izenzo zakhe eziyimpumelelo
kwanegalelo
lakhe
eluntwini
njengesiquququ sezepolitiki zimenze
waba
ngumntu
ohlonitshiweyo
ngabaninzi ekuhlaleni. Kwatshiwo ke,
egameni
lombheni
lo,
ukuba

and is a first offender. These factors
must be considered together with the
nature and seriousness of the offence
and the interests of society.

wayehlonitshiwe liqela loogxa bakhe
abangooceba,
kwaye
wayenobudlelwane
obuhle
kunye
nommangali
ngaphambi
kwesehlo
sohlaselo, waye ekwangumntu oqalayo
ukona. Ezizinto ke maziqwalaselwe
kunye
nobunjani,
kwanobubi
obunobuzaza bolwaphulo-mthetho olu,
kwakunye
nokulungelwa
koluntu
ngokubanzi.

[11]  It was conceded on the appellant’s
behalf that the offence he committed
was ‘particularly serious and even
egregious’. The respondent highlighted
the fact that the ‘weapon’ used in
assaulting
the
complainant
was
particularly dangerous. The complai-
nant was hit with such force that the
glass jug shattered. The assault, which
was applied on a sensitive part of the
complainant’s head, his temple, could
have resulted in death or brain damage.
It was also stressed that the complainant
was told by the doctor that he was
‘lucky to be alive’. The medico-legal
[11] Kwavunywa
kona,
egameni
lombheni, ukuba ulwaphulo-mthetho
olu
walwenzayo
‘lwalunobubi
obunobuzaza
ngendlela
eyodwa,
kunjalonje lutsibe ilitye likaphungela.
Umphenduli (uMbuso) wayigqamisa
inyaniso yokuba ‘isikhali’ awahlasela
ummangali
ngaso
sasinobungozi
ngokukodwa. Ummangali wabethwa
ngamandla
kangangokuba
loojagi
yegilasi
yaqhekeka
yaziingceba.
Ummangali wabethwa kwindawo e
ethe-ethe entloko, entlafunweni, nto
leyo
yayinokumbulala
okanye
imenzakalise ubuchopho. Yagxininiswa

report
clearly
evidences
the
life
threatening nature of the injuries
sustained by the complainant.

nento yokuba ummangali waxelelwa
ngugqirha ukuba kwabalithamsanqa
ukuba abe usaphila. Ingxelo yoogqirha
neyasemthethweni
inika
ubungqina
obucacisayo
ukuba
amanxeba
ommangali ayenobungozi.

[12]  It is not in dispute that the attack
has had adverse, long term effects on the
complainant. He still suffers from short-
term memory loss, migraines, and
emotional distress. The trial court
cannot be faulted for underscoring the
gravity of the offence. The concession
as to the seriousness of the offence and
its impact on the complainant was well
made by the appellant’s counsel.

[12]     Ayiphikiseki into yokuba olu
hlaselo luye lwaba neziphumo ezibi,
neziyakuphela emva kwexesha elide
kummangali.
Ummangali
usamane
ukulahlekwa
kukukhumbula
izinto
ezisanda
kwenzeka,
ekhathazwa
kukuqaqanjelwa
kakhulu
yintloko
nakukudandatheka ngokweemvakalelo.
Inkundla
eyavavanya
ityala
ayinakugxekwa ngokububeka bucace
gca   ubunzulu bobubi bolu lwaphulo-
mthetho. Nomthetheli wombheni lo
ubuvume
ngokuphandle
ububi
nobuzaza
bolu
lwaphulo-mthetho
kwanomphumela walo kummangali.

[13] The trial court also correctly found
that the community is entitled to expect
a high level of responsible behaviour
[13]   Inkundla eyavavanya ityala yenza
okulungileyo ngokufumanisa ukuba
uluntu
lunelungelo
lokulindela

and maturity from its leaders. Municipal
councillors are entrusted with making
decisions that profoundly affect the
quality of lives and livelihoods of their
communities.  As the forum where these
decisions are made, the council chamber
is intended to provide a safe platform for
the exposition of differing viewpoints,
opinions and robust debates. Political
party
representatives
should
be
exemplary in their keen understanding
of the values of freedom of expression
and respect for rules of engagement.
The integrity and credibility of the
municipal administration in the eyes of
the
community
should
not
be
compromised. The community expects
its representatives to uphold the law and
to act in accordance with the rules. If
councillors resort to aggression and
violence when decisions do not favour
them, the interests of society are
undermined.

ukuziphatha okukwinqanaba eliphezulu
ngenkathalo nokuvuthwa kwengqondo
ngokwezenzo kwiinkokeli zalo. Ooceba
bakamasipala baphathiswe umsebenzi
wokwenza
izigqibo
ezichaphazela
ngokunzulu
udidi
nomgangatho
wobomi kunye neendlela zokuphila
zabantu kwiindawo zabo zasekuhlaleni.
Njengeqonga
ezenzelwa
kulo
ezizigqibo, igumbi leBhunga limiselwe
ukuba libe yindawo ekhuselekileyo
apho
kuboniswana
ngeembono
ezahlukeneyo, nezimvo ezingafaniyo
kunye neengxoxo ezishushu.  Abameli
bamaqela ezopolitiko bamele ukuba
babe
yimizekelo
njengabantu
abayiqonda
nzulu
imithetho
yenkululeko
yokuvakalisa
izimvo
nokuhlonipha
imigaqo
yothetha-
thethwano nokuxoxa. Ukunyaniseka
kwanokuthenjwa kolawulo loomasipala
emehlweni oluntu mayingabi zizinto
ezithotywa isithozela.  Uluntu lulindele
ukuba
abameli
balo
bathobele
umthetho, baziphathe ngokwemigaqo.
Ukuba
ooceba
babhenela

kwiingcwangu nobungxwaba-ngxwaba
obunezigalo
xa
izigqibo
zingahambisani
nabo,
ukulungelwa
koluntu kunyhashelwa phantsi.

[14] As a leader of the ANC in the
Council, who was responsible for
instilling discipline among his fellow
councillors and was a role model for
aspiring political leaders, the appellant
had a responsibility to lead by example.
Instead he did the opposite and his
fellow councillors indeed took their cue
from him and also threw glasses at other
councillors. The trial court was correct
in its description of the councillors’
conduct as that of ‘street thugs’ and in
remarking that the appellant’s conduct
should not be tolerated.

[14] Njengenkokeli ye-ANC phaya kulo
iBhunga,
eyayinoxanduva
lokuphembelela ingqeqesho   phakathi
koogxa
bayo
abangooceba
ekwangumzekelo
ophambili
kwiinkokeli zepolitiki ezisakhulayo,
umbheni wayenoxanduva lokukhokela
ngokuba ngumzekelo. Endaweni yoko,
wenza
obekungalindelekanga
kuye,
baze ke oogxa bakhe abangooceba,
ngokwenene, bazeka mzekweni, benza
njengaye
nabo,
bagibisela
iigilasi
kwabanye
ooceba.
Inkundla
eyavavanya ityala yayinyanisile xa
yayithelekisa ukuziphatha kwabaceba
njengokuziphatha
‘kwemigulukudu
yasesitalatweni’ nangokutsho ukuba
isimilo
sombheni
lo
masinganyanyezelwa.

[15]   Our country presently suffers from
uncontrolled and unacceptable levels of
violence. The community expects the
courts
to
impose
sentences
that
recognise this prevalence and show its
repugnance and contempt for such
conduct. Assault with intent to cause
grievous bodily harm is one of those
offences that are pervasive in our
society. While custodial sentences are
not the ultimate solution, they play a
role in sending a message not only to the
appellant but to would-be offenders,
that regardless of one’s position in
society, the law will take its course and
appropriate sentences will be meted
out.6 This is not to sacrifice the
appellant at the altar of deterrence, but
to levy a sentence fitting of the
particular circumstances of the case.
[15] Ilizwe
lethu
kunamhla
nje
liyonakala
ngamanqanaba
angalawulekiyo
nangamkelekanga
obungxwaba-ngxwaba
obunezigalo.
Abantu ke balindele ukuba iinkundla
ziwise
izohlwayo
ezikubonisayo
ukunanzwa
koluxhaphako
nokungamkeleki
koku
kuziphatha
kunje.
Uhlaselo
ngenjongo
yokwenzakalisa
kakubi
emzimbeni
lusesinye
sezozenzo
zolwaphulo-
mthetho ezigubungele uluntu lwethu.
Noxa izohlwayo ezihamba nentolongo
zingesiso izisombululo esigqibeleleyo,
ziyayenza
indima
yokuthumela
umyalezo ongayi kumbheni lo kuphela,
kodwa oya nakwabanye abaseceba
ukwaphula umthetho,   othi nokuba sele
ubani enewonga eluntwini, umthetho
wona uya kuyi dlala indima yawo,

6 See S v Dalindyebo [2015] ZASCA 144; [2015] 4 All SA 689 (SCA); 2016 (1) SACR 329 (SCA) para 82, where
this Court held:
‘The lesson that cannot be emphasised enough is that persons in positions of authority such as the appellant are obliged
to act within the limits imposed by the law, and that no one is above the law. The Constitution guarantees equal
treatment under the law.’

Ku-S v Dalindyebo [2015] ZASCA 144; [2015] 4 All SA 689 (SCA) kumhlathi 82, leNkundla yathi:
‘Isifundo esingenakugxininiswa ngokwaneleyo kukuba abantu abikwizikhundla zolawulo njengombheni lo
banoxanduva lokuziphatha ngokwasemthethweni, kwaye kungekho mntu ongaphezu komthetho. UMgaqo-Siseko
uqinisekisa impatho yabantu elinganayo phantsi komthetho.’

I may add that the sentence imposed by
the trial court would, in my view,
equally befit even an ordinary member
of society, if due regard is had to the
seriousness of the offence.

ziwiswe nezohlwayo ezifanelekileyo.
Oko ayikokunqunqela umbheni lo
egoqweni
lothintelo-bubi
kodwa
kwenzelwa ukuba kubekwe isohlwayo
esifanelene ncam neemeko ezizodwa
zeli
tyala.
Ndingongeza
ndithi,
ngokokwam
ukubona,
uhlobo
lwesohlwayo
esibekwe
yinkundla
eyavavanya ityala, besiya kufaneleka
kanye nakumntu njee olilungu loluntu,
xa
kujongwe
ncakasana
ubuzaza
belityala.

[16] The further submission made on
behalf of the appellant as a mitigating
factor, that the atmosphere in the
council chamber was charged with
anger and that members of all the
political parties in the Council exhibited
unruly behaviour towards each other,
does not take the matter any further. The
submission was that the incident
happened ‘in a state of uncontrollable
anger . . . and in a brief yet volatile and
insane attack on the complainant, all of
which took a very short time.’
[16] Okunye okuthethiweyo egameni
lombheni
njengombandela
onokunciphisa ububi betyala kukuba
umoya phaya kwigumbi lebhunga
wawu ngowomsindo, amalungu awo
onke
amaqela
opolitiko
endlongondlongo
kwamanye,
akuwuhambiseli phambili lo mcimbi.
Kuthiwe esisehlo senzeka ‘kwimeko
eyayinemisindo engalawulekiyo . . .
kwaye
nokuhlaselwa
kommangali
kwenzeka ngesiquphe esasiqhambuk’
umlilo nesasingekho zingqondweni,

Interestingly, at the trial the appellant
never contended that he was provoked.
His version was that he had acted in
self-defence when the complainant and
other DA party members approached
him in a threatening manner. Further,
later on the night of the incident, he laid
with the local police a charge of
attempted
murder
against
the
complainant. In the relevant part, his
statement to the police read: ‘[the
complainant] punched me with a
clenched fist. I ducked he missed and in
the period gunshots were fired. I then
started running towards the door. I then
felt fists beating me on my back . . .
There was also a councillor with false
teeth who dove trying to take me down,
I jumped over him.’  Conspicuously
missing from this statement was the
crucial
fact
that
he
struck
the
complainant on the head with a glass
jug, which shattered and cut his own
fingers as well. Instead he told the
police that he did not know how he
sustained the cuts. His statement to the
izinto
ezathatha
ixesha
elincinane
kakhulu xa zizonke.’ Into etsala umdla
yile
yokuba
ngexesha
lokuxoxwa
kwetyala umbheni lo zange akhe amise
ngelithi
waye
eqale
woniwa.
Wayesoloko
esithi
yena
waye
ezikhusela
xa
ummangali
kunye
namanye amalungu eqela le-DA ayesiza
kuye ngendlela egrogrisayo.  Ngaphezu
koko, ngobusuku beso sehlo, waya
kumangala emapoliseni asekuhlaleni
esithi ummangali ebezama ukumbulala.
Kule ndawo ifaneleneyo, ingxelo yakhe
kumapolisa yayifundeka ngolu hlobo:
‘[ummangali]
undibethe
ngenqindi.
Ndiye ndaphepha, wandiphosa, kwaza
ngelo
xesha
kwabakho
udubulo
ngemipu.   Ndaza ndaqalisa ukubaleka
ndisiya ngasemnyango. Ndaza ndeva
amanqindi endibetha emqolo . . .
Kwakukwakho
noceba
owayenamazinyo
okwenziwa,
owazijulayo
ezama
ukundiwisa,
ndatsiba
phezu
kwakhe.’

Into
eyayibonakala gca ukuba ayikho kule
ngxelo yayiyile ingundoqo, eyokuba

police was clearly untruthful and
measured to manipulate the incident to
his advantage. The video footage firmly
disproved his version in a number of
respects and his attempts to salvage
what was left of his version only made
matters worse. Both the trial court and
the high court carefully highlighted
these contradictions in their judgments.

yena wabetha ummangali lo entloko
ngejagi yegilasi, eyaphukayo yaza naye
yamsika eminweni. Endaweni yoko,
wawaxelela amapolisa ukuba akazi
ukuba wawafumana njani loo manxeba
okusikeka. Ingxelo yakhe emapoliseni
yayibubuxoki,
ibonakala
ukuba
yayilungiselelwe ukuba isijike esaa
sehlo isenze sibe sesilungiselela yena.
Imiboniso yeevidiyo yayiphikisa into
ayithethileyo
ngokungathandabuzekiyo,
kwimiba
eliqela;
yathi
nemizamo
yakhe
yokuhlangula loo nto ishiyekileyo
yecala lakhe lebali, yayenza imeko
yambi nangakumbi. Kwizigwebo zazo
zombini ezi nkundla, le yavavanya
ityala kunye nenkundla ephakamileyo,
zaye zazigqamisa ngenkathalokazi ezi
ziphikisi-nyaniso.

[17] Ultimately the appellant was
proved to have been the aggressor on the
day of the incident. He led the other
councillors in acting in defiance of the
Council
rules and the
Speaker’s
[17]  Ekugqibeleni yaba nguye umbheni
owafunyaniswa
ukuba
yayinguye
owaqala ukuhlasela ngomhla  wesehlo.
Nguye owakhokela abanye ooceba
ukuba benze izenzo zokungayithobeli

instructions.
His
explanation
for
approaching the Speaker’s precinct,
purportedly to speak to him, which he
admitted was impermissible, amounted
to a further falsehood and was
contradicted by the evidence of the
respondent’s witnesses that Mr Feni, his
co-aggressor, grabbed the Speaker by
the arm.

imiyalelo yeBhunga nekaSomlomo.
Inkcazo
yakhe
yesizathu
sokuya
ngakumhlaba kaSomlomo, esithi ke
wayesiya kuthetha naye, nto ke leyo
phofu
awayivumayo
naye
ukuba
yayingavumelekanga,
loonkcazo
yaphinda yaba kokunye ukungathethi
nyaniso, waza waphikiseka bubungqina
bamangqina omphenduli obuthi uMnu
Feni, owayengumhlaseli kunye naye,
wanqakula uSomlomo ngengalo.

[18]  The appellant showed no remorse
for his actions. In his communication
with
the
correctional
supervision
officer, he clearly did not accept
responsibility for his actions as it was
recorded in his pre-sentence report that
‘[t]he accused does not admit guilt of
the count but … respects and accepts the
verdict of the court.’ His explanation for
what
happened
displayed
no
unequivocal acceptance of wrongdoing
or penitence of the kind described in S v
Matyityi.7 The Court in Matyityi
[18] Umbheni lo akabonakalisanga
kuzisola
ngezenzo
zakhe.
Kuqhakamshelwano lwakhe negosa
lokugada leSebe lezoBulungisa zange
aluvume uxanduva lwezenzo zakhe
njengoko
kwakubhaliwe
kwingxelo
yakhe
yaphambi
kokuba
kunikwe
isohlwayo kwathiwa, ‘lo mtyholwa
akavumi ukuba unetyala ngale nto
kodwa ... uyasihlonipha, esamkela ke
isigqibo senkundla’. Inkcazo yakhe
malunga nento eyayenzekile zange
ibonakalise
ukuba
uyamkela

7 S v Matyityi [2010] ZASCA 127; [2010] 2 All SA 424 (SCA); 2011 (1) SACR 40 (SCA) para 13.

observed, that ‘before a court can find
that an accused person is genuinely
remorseful, it needs to have a proper
appreciation
of,
inter
alia:
what
motivated the accused to commit the
deed; what has since provoked his or her
change of heart; and whether he or she
does indeed have a true appreciation of
the consequences of those actions.’ The
appellant has shown none of this. On the
contrary, he changed his version several
times, in an attempt to place blame on
others for the altercation, perjured
himself in court by giving false
evidence,
which
was
clearly
contradicted by the video footage,
continued to deny any wrongdoing and
gave a false statement to the police.

ngaphandle
kokuthandabuza
nangokungenamavel’etshona
ukuba
wenza into engalunganga, okanye
ukuzisola okulolu hlobo luchazwe ku- S
v Matyityi. INkundla phaya ku-Matyityi
yathetha
yathi,
‘phambi
kokuba
inkundla ibe nako ukufumanisa ukuba
umntu obekwa isityholo uyazisola
ngokunyanisekileyo, kufuneka ukuba
iqondisise kakuhle ukuba, phakathi
kwezinye
izinto:
yayiyintoni
eyayimqhubile lo mtyholwa ukuba enze
eso senzo wasenzayo; kwenzeke ntoni
ukususela ngoko eyenze ukuba aguquke
entliziyweni; nokuba ingaba unako
nyhani
na
ukuziqonda
kakuhle
iziphumo zezo zenzo.’ Lo mbheni
akabonisanga
nanye
yezi
zinto.
Endaweni yoko, uliguqule ibali lakhe
amaxesha aliqela, ezama ukubeka ityala
lalo mlo phezu kwabanye abantu,
uziveze
enkundleni
njengexokisa-
mthetho
ngokunika
ubungqina
obungeyonyaniso,
obaphikiswayo
ngokucacileyo yimiboniso yeevidiyo,
waqhubeka ukukhanyela mpela ukuba

wenze into engalunganga, wanika
nengxelo engeyonyaniso emapoliseni.

[19]  In all the circumstances I find that
the high court was correct in its finding
that there was no misdirection or
improper exercise of the discretion by
the trial court. All the relevant factors
were appropriately balanced. That being
the case, the appellate court is not at
large to interfere with the sentence
imposed by the trial court. I must,
however, disagree with the high court
on one aspect, which is that the sentence
imposed is a robust one. The period of
three years’ imprisonment of which one
year is suspended on certain conditions
(effectively a sentence of two years’
imprisonment), meets the circumstances
of this case and is in keeping with
sentences that have been imposed by the
courts in similar cases. One similar case
is S v Eales8 where the appellant had
been convicted of assault with intent to
do grievous bodily harm for striking the
[19] Kuzo zonke ezi meko ndifumanisa
ukuba inkundla ephakamileyo yagqiba
ngokufanelekilyo ekufumaneni kwayo
ukuba zange kubekho lulahlekiso-
mthethweni
okanye
kusetyenziswa
gwenxa kwelungelo lokwenza isigqibo
yinkundla evavanye ityala. Yawabeka
onke amasolotya esikalini ngendlela
efanelekileyo. Xa kunjalo ke, inkundla
yezibheno
ayikwazi
kusiphazamisa
isohlwayo
esabekwa
yinkundla
eyavavanya ityala. Kodwa ke, kukho
indawo enye endingavumelani ngayo
nenkundla ephakamileyo; le ithi esi
sohlwayo sinikiweyo siqatha.  Ixesha
lokuvalelwa entolongweni iminyaka
emithathu, elinyaka mnye oxhonyiweyo
phezu
kwemiqathango
ethile
(ngokwenene esona sohlwayo sibe
yiminyaka
emibini
entolongweni),
lizifanele iimeko zeli tyala kwaye
lihambelana
nezohlwayo
esezakhe

8 S v Eales 1991 (1) SACR 160 (N).

complainant on the head with a beer
glass, in an unprovoked attack at a hotel.
The attack caused injuries and scarred
the complainant’s face. The appellant
was sentenced to three years’ direct
imprisonment. On appeal, the sentence
was altered by suspending one year of
the three years’ imprisonment for five
years on certain conditions. The exact
sentence has been imposed in this case.
Notably, the appellant in Eales was an
‘ordinary’ offender.

zawiswa
ziinkundla
zamatyala
kwimibandela efana nalo. Elinye ityala
elifanayo lelika S v Eales apho umbheni
waye efunyenwe enetyala lokuhlasela
ngenjongo
yokwenzakalisa
kakubi
emzimbeni kuba wayebethe ummangali
entloko ngebhotile yegilasi, emhlasela
engamenzanga nto, ehotele ethile. Olo
hlaselo lwabangela amanxeba neziva
ebusweni bommangali. Loo mbheni
wanikwa isohlwayo esikukuyakudontsa
entolongweni
iminyaka
emithathu
ngqo. Wathi akubhena, isohlwayo eso
saguqulwa ngokuxhonywa konyaka
omnye
kuleya
yokuyakudontsa
entolongweni, exhonyelwa iminyaka
emihlanu
phantsi
kwemiqathango
ethile. Esi sohlwayo sinikiweyo kweli
ityala siyafana nqwa nesiya. Into
eqaphelekayo ke kukuba lo mbheni
uphaya
ku-Eales
wayengumaphuli-
mthetho
ongumntu
‘njee’
wasekuhlaleni.

[20]  In Makhudu v Director of Public
Prosecutions,9 this Court found the
position of the appellant, as a police
officer, to be a relevant aggravating
factor.  It found his actions to have been
utterly reprehensible, calling for a
severe response. The Court imposed a
sentence of five years’ imprisonment
for assault with intent to cause grievous
bodily harm.

[20] Ku-Makhudu v Director of Public
Prosecutions, le Nkundla yafumanisa
iwonga lombheni, owaye elipolisa,
ilisolotya elilenza libi ngakumbi tyala.
Yafumanisa
ukuba
izenzo
zakhe
zazisonyanyeka
ngokugqithisileyo,
zifanelwe
sisohlwayo
esiqatha.
INkundla
ke
yamisela
isohlwayo
seminyaka emihlanu esentolongweni
ngokuhlasela
omnye
ngenjongo
yokwenzakalisa kakubi emzimbeni.

[21]  I do not read any of the cases cited
on behalf of the appellant to be
supportive of the view that custodial
sentences are not suitable for first
offenders in cases of serious assault. In
some of these cases a sentence of direct
imprisonment with a portion suspended
was considered appropriate. It must be
remembered that there is no uniformity
in sentencing. While similar cases serve
as a useful guide, the particular
circumstances of the offender, the
nature of the offence and interests of
[21] Kuwo onke amatyala abhekise
kuwo
umbheni
andifundanga
ndafumana nto ixhasa oluluvo lokuba
izohlwayo
ezihamba
nentolongo
azifanelekanga
kubantu
abaqalayo
ukona
kwiimeko
zohlaselo
olubi
olunobuzaza.
Kwezinye
zezimeko
isohlwayo sokuya ngqo entolongweni
ekukho inxenye yaso exhonyiweyo
zabonwa
zizezifanelekileyo.
Makukhunjulwe ke ukuba akukho
mfano ncam ekumiseleni isohlwayo.
Nangona amatyala afana namanye

9Makhudu v Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] ZASCA 21; 2001 (1) SACR 495 (SCA) para 16.

society remain the litmus test. These
circumstances may differ in each case,
attracting different responses. As was
stated in S v Fraser,10 ‘it is idle exercise
to try to match the colours of the case at
hand and the colours of other cases with
the object of arriving at an appropriate
sentence. Each case should be dealt with
on its own facts, connected with the
crime and the criminal…’

encedisa
ukunika
isikhokelo
esincedayo, iimeko ncakasana zomoni,
ubunjani balo ulwaphulo-mthetho olo,
kunye
nokulungelwa
koluntu
ngokubanzi
zihlala
ziluvavanyo
oluziphumo ziyicacisayo imeko. Ezi
meko zingohluka kwityala ngalinye,
zifune
ke
iimpendulo
kuzo
ezahlukileyo. Njengoko kwatshiwo ku-
S v Fraser, ‘yinto engasi ndawo
ukuzama ukufanisa imibala yetyala
elichotshelweyo
kunye
nemibala
yamanye
amatyala
ngenjongo
yokufikelela
kwisohlwayo
esifanelekileyo.
Imeko
nganye
mayijongwe phezu kwezayo izibakala
ezinxulumene
nolwaphulo-mthetho
kwelotyala kunye nomaphuli-mthetho
lowo...’

[22]  In the result, the following order is
made:
1.   Condonation for the late filing of
the appellant’s notice of appeal is
granted.
[22] Isiphumo
ke
ngulomyalelo
ulandelayo:
1.
Isicelo
sombheni
sokuxolelwa
kokungeniswa
kade
kwesaziso
sakhe sokubhena siyavunyelwa.

10 S v Fraser 1987 (2) SA 859 (A) at 863 A-D.

2. Condonation for the late filing of
the respondent’s heads of argument
is granted.
3.   The appeal is dismissed.
2.  Isicelo somphenduli sokuxolelwa
kokungeniswa kade kwezihloko
zakhe zengxoxo siyavunyelwa.

3.     Isibheno siyachithwa.

_________________________________
N P MABINDLA-BOQWANA

ACTING JUDGE OF APPEAL
IJAJI YEZIBHENO EBAMBELEYO

APPEARANCES / ABATHETHELELI:

For Appellant/ Omele UMbheni:

T N Price SC

Instructed by/ Eyalelwa ngaba:

Nettletons, Grahamstown

Symington & De Kock Attorneys,
Bloemfontein

For Respondent/ Omele uMphenduli:
N C Turner

Instructed by/ Eyalelwa ngaba:
Director
of
Public
Prosecutions,
Grahamstown
Director
of
Public
Prosecutions,
Bloemfontein

SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEAL
FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

9 September 2020

STATUS

Immediate

Lungisa
v
The
State
(Case
no
696/2019)
[2020] ZASCA
(9 September 2020)

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form
part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Today the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal of the appellant, Mr Andile Lungisa
against the decision of the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Grahamstown.

Mr Lungisa, who was the leader of the African National Congress in the Nelson Mandela Bay
Municipal Council, was convicted by the Port Elizabeth Magistrate’s Court of assaulting a
fellow councillor from the Democratic Alliance, Mr Ryno Kayser (the complainant), with a
glass jug filled with water, which shattered over his head and caused him several life-
threatening injuries with long lasting adverse effects. This occurred during a council meeting
held on 27 October 2016. On 9 May 2018 he was sentenced to three years imprisonment of
which one year was suspended for a period five years on certain conditions (effectively two
years’ imprisonment). His appeal in the high court failed against both his conviction and
sentence. With the special leave of the Supreme Court of Appeal, he appealed against his
sentence only.

The Supreme Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the
trial court, on the grounds that that court had appropriately balanced the appellant’s personal
circumstances, the nature and seriousness of the crime committed and the interests of society.
It observed that Mr Lungisa used a dangerous weapon when hitting the complainant on a
sensitive part of his body, the temple, causing serious, potentially fatal injuries. While he was
a first offender and respected by his community, the crime that Mr Lungisa committed was

serious and had devastating consequences. He did not behave in a manner expected by the
community of its councillors, failed to take responsibility for his actions and showed total lack
of remorse for his deeds.

ISISHWANKATHELO SOONONDABA

Namhlanje inkundla yezibheno, iSupreme Court of Appeal, ichithe isibheno sikaMnumzana
Andile Lungisa ebesiphikisa isigwebo seSahlulo seNkundla ePhakamileyo yaseMpuma
Koloni, Grahamstown.

UMnu Lungisa obeyinkokheli yombutho iAfrican National Congress kwiBhunga likaMasipala
waseNelson Mandela Bay, wafunyanwa enetyala lokuhlasela ngokuyingozi ngejagi yegilasi
enamanzi ugxa wakhe obenguceba weDemocratic Alliance, uMnu. Ryno Kayser (ummangali)
owenzakala ngokumasikizi washiyeka eneziva emzimbeni nasemphefumlweni eziya kuhlala
ixesha elide. Oku kwenzeka kwintlanganiso yeBhunga elo eyayibanjwe ngomhla we-27 kweye
Dwarha ngo-2016.  Ngomhla we-9 kuCanzibe ngo-2018 wanikwa isohlwayo sokuvalelwa
entolongweni iminyaka emithathu, ekwathi unyaka omnye kuloo minyaka waxhonywa ithuba
eliyiminyaka emihlanu, phantsi kwemiqathango ethile (esona sigwebo yayiminyaka emibini
entolongweni). Isibheno sakhe esiphikisa isigwebo nesohlwayo kwinkundla ePhakamileyo
saphunza. Ubhena kuleNkundla ngemvume yayo ekhethekileyo ephikisa isohlwayo kuphela.

LeNkundla ifumanise ukuba ayinasizathu sakuphazamisa isohlwayo esabekwa yinkundla
eyayivavanya ityala kuba loonkundla yazilungiselelanisa ngokufanelekileyo iimeko zombheni,
ubuni nobuzaza lolwaphulo-mthetho kwakunye nokulungelwa koluntu. Ibalule ukuba uMnu
Lungisa wasebenzisa isikhali esinobungozi wabetha ummangali kwindawo e ethe-ethe
yomzimba, intlafuno, ngozi leyo yayinokumbulala. Naxa wayeqala ukophula umthetho
ehlonitshwa luluntu, ityala lakhe libi linemiphumela enobuzaza kakhulu. Zange aziphathe
ngendlela elindelwe luluntu kooCeba balo. Wala ukuthatha uxanduva lwezenzo zakhe,
wabonisa ukungazisoli kwaphela.

... End ...