Mphahlele and Another v S (CC18/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1389 (12 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1389 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Mphahlele and Another v S (CC18/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1389 (12 December 2025) Mphahlele and Another v S (CC18/2020) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1389 (12 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1389.html sino date 12 December 2025 # REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA # INTHEHIGHCOURTOFSOUTHAFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA # GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Case Number: CC18/2020 (1)  REPORTABLE: YES NO (2)  OF INTREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3)  REVISED: YES/NO 12/12/2025 In the matter between: # THAPELO MPHAHLELE                                         First Applicant THAPELO MPHAHLELE                                         First Applicant TEBATSO MANGOPE                                             Second Applicant # and THE STATE Respondent # JUDGMENT JUDGMENT Mosopa, J Introduction [1] This is an application for Leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence in terms of section 316 (1) of Act 51 of 1977 alternatively section 17 (1)(a)-(c) of the Superior Court of Appeal, to the full court of this division or Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). [2] The two-applicants stood trial with other accused and were arraigned as accused 5 (First applicant) and accused 6 (second applicant) respectively. Both applicants were sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. I must pause to mention that the applicants faced multiple charges, and the first applicant was convicted of only 1 count of robbery and second applicant convicted of two counts of robbery which were taken together as one for purpose of sentence. [3] The applicants are of the view that their applications have a reasonable prospect of success and that another court will come to a different conclusion than the one arrived to by this court. This application is opposed by the state. Both applicants are represented by Mr Kgagara from the Legal Aid, South who was not representing them at trial. [4] In S v Smith 2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA) at para 7, it was stated, ''[7] What the test of reasonable prospects of success postulates is a dispassionate decision, based on the facts and the law, that a court of appeal could reasonably arrive at a conclusion different to that of the trial court. In order to succeed, therefore, the appellant must convince this court on proper grounds that he has prospects of success on appeal and that those prospects are not remote but have a realistic chance of succeeding. More is required to be established than that there is a mere possibility of success, that the case is arguable on appeal or that the case cannot be categorised as hopeless. There must, in other words, be a sound, rational basis for the conclusion that there are prospects of success on appeal". ( See also The Mont Chevaux Trust (IT 2012/28) V Tina Goosen and 18 others LCC 14R/2014) [5] The first applicant was linked to the commission of the offence by the video footage wherein he is seen wearing a white shirt and grey cap. Warrant officer Van Wyk identified the first applicant coming from behind the counter and he is also seen taking cigarettes and placing them in a bag. The first applicant did not enter the shop as a customer and there is clear evidence that he was part of the robbers. I do not see any court coming to a different conclusion arrived to by this court. [6] With regard to count 20 which is a robbery at the filling station, evidence indicates that the place was well lit. The video footage depicts second applicant wearing a gray cap and he has a mark at the back of his neck. The court also observed the mark on the neck of the second applicant which looks like a burn mark. The second applicant did not dispute the presence of such mark and testified that he was stabbed and that is how he sustained such injury. [7] With regards to count 23 which is a robbery at the filling station, evidence indicates that the place was well lit. The video footage depicts second applicant wearing a blue cap. He is also shown on the video footage taking away cigarettes. It is also with regards to count 20 and 23 that I see no court coming to a different conclusion. [8] With regards to sentence both applicants were charged with offences that resorts under section 51 (2) of Act 105 of 1997, which prescribes a minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment. Section 51(3) of Act 105 of 1997 directs a deviation of sentence, if an accused person can satisfy the court that there is existence of substantial and compelling circumstances. There is also a provision which gives a court authority and jurisdiction to impose a sentence of five years imprisonment in addition to 15 years prescribed sentence. f did not exercise that discretion and add a further sentence of 5 years imprisonment, because of the view that the sentence suits the crime, offenders and interests of society. [9] In both cases I did not find the existence of circumstances that are substantial and compelling to deviate from the prescribed sentence. The conduct of the applicants in committing the offences left the employees of the places that they robbed devastated. Some were so terrified to attend the identification parade, and some were even afraid to come and testify against applicants. I took time spend in custody into consideration, but the time spent in custody cannot on its own constitute a substantial and compelling circumstances. I find no court coming to a different conclusion. There is no rational basis that there are prospects of success. ORDER [10] In the result, the following order is made, 1.Applicantions for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence is hereby refused. # M.J.MOSOPA M.J.MOSOPA # JUDGEOF THE HIGH COURT JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT PRETORIA Date of hearing :24 November 2025 Date of Judgment                       :12 December 2025 For the First and Second Applicant: Mr Kgagara Instructed by Legal Aid South Africa For the Respondent:Adv N Maphalala Instructed By Director of Public Prosecution, Pretoria sino noindex make_database footer start