S v Moyo (CC15/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 454 (6 October 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: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAWCHC 454 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## S v Moyo (CC15/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 454 (6 October 2025) S v Moyo (CC15/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 454 (6 October 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAWCHC/Data/2025_454.html sino date 6 October 2025 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) ### JUDGMENT JUDGMENT Reportable Case no: CC15/2023 In the matter between: THE STATE and TREVOR MOYO Neutral citation: State v Trevor Moyo (Case no: CC15/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC (6 October 2025) Coram: MAYOSI AJ Delivered :   6 October 2025 Summary: Accused facing charges of murder, read with the provisions of section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997;  robbery with aggravating circumstances read with ss 51(2), 52(2), 52A and 52B of Act 105 of 1997 and further read with ss 262(1) and 260 of Act 51 of 1977; three counts of defeating or obstructing the course of justice; theft and, being a Zimbabwean national, contravening section 49(1) of the Immigration Act. # JUDGMENT ON CONVICTION JUDGMENT ON CONVICTION Mayosi AJ: Introduction and background [1] Trevor Moyo ( the accused ) faces seven criminal charges in this trial. [2] He is accused of murdering Mr Pierre Michei Bretonnes ( the deceased ), a man that the accused says was like a father to him.  The relevant time is the period from 6 September until 30 September 2022. [3] The accused was employed by the deceased first as a casual worker in 2019, and later as an assistant in the deceased’s business from about 2021. The deceased was in the business of making churros and selling them at three markets, i.e., the Cape Vineyards and Farm Village markets in Noordhoek, as well as at the Hout Bay market.  According to the accused, the Cape Vineyards market operated on Wednesdays; the Farm Village market ran on Thursdays, and the Hout Bay market operated on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. [4] The deceased was a French national who resided at 1[…] G[...] Close in Noordhoek ( the property ; alternatively, the deceased’s home ); and was married to Dominique, also a French national. At the relevant time when the events occurred from which the charges faced by the accused arise, the deceased and Dominique were separated, and Dominique had returned to France. [5] The deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused on the evening of Wednesday, 7 September 2022. [6] On Thursday, 8 September 2022, after the deceased did not deliver the stock required in preparation for that day’s market to the accused as planned, the accused went to the deceased’s home, jumped over the fence and gained access to the property.  From 8 September onwards until his arrest on 30 September 2022, the accused had free access to the deceased’s home, having taken the keys and/or remote control to gain such access on 8 September 2022. [7] The accused continued to operate the Hout Bay market in the absence of the deceased, using for that purpose the stock that was stored in the deceased’s garage.  He operated the Hout Bay market on 9 to 11 September; 16 to 18 September and 23 to 25 September 2022. [8] From 8 September until the accused’s arrest on 30 September 2022, he was in possession of the deceased’s Standard Bank card which he removed from the house on 8 September when he first gained access into the house. During this period, the accused used the deceased’s bank card to make various purchases totalling the amount of approximately R140 000.00. [9] From 8 September until the accused’s arrest on 30 September 2022, he had exclusive possession of the deceased’s bank card. [10] At no stage during this period (from 8 until 30 September 2022) did the accused report the deceased to the South African Police Service ( SAPS ) as a missing person, notwithstanding that, according to him he had noticed blood in the lounge after he first gained access to the house on 8 September 2022, which blood he proceeded to wipe off and thereafter told no-one about until 1 October 2022, after his arrest. [11] At no point did the accused tell Dominique, with whom he was in constant communication during the relevant period as she was deeply concerned about the deceased’s disappearance, that he had observed blood when he entered the house on 8 September 2022. [12] Dominique, whom the accused regarded as a mother to him, was concerned not only about the deceased, but also about the well-being of their pets at the deceased’s home, given his absence. She asked the accused to look after the pets, and he gave almost daily assurances to her in regard to their well-being. [13] Dominique requested the accused to approach the police and report her husband as missing, first on 12 September and again on 20 September 2022.  The accused did not do so. [14] Instead of reporting the deceased as missing on 12 September 2022 as requested by Dominique, the accused informed her that nothing seemed untoward at the deceased’s home; and thereafter on the same day told her that he had heard from the deceased via WhatsApp, and that the latter had told him that he was in Johannesburg and no-one must be told.  The State disputes the authenticity of this communication. [15] On 12 September 2022, the accused lied to Dominique when he told her that he had jumped over the fence to gain access to the deceased’s property because the gate was closed and all doors were locked.  This was a lie because at that time, the accused had already attained free access to the deceased’s home, having uplifted the keys for such free access on 8 September 2022. [16] At no stage did the accused inform Dominique, the only relative of the deceased with whom he was in contact and who was looking for him, that he had taken possession of the deceased’s bank card and was spending his money at will, in the manner that he was doing from 8 September until he was arrested. [17] The accused lied to Dominique on 13 September 2022, when he told her that he was running out of money to feed the pets, and that he would use his own money if he had to. This was a lie because at that stage, the accused had exclusive access to the funds in the deceased’s bank account which he had exclusive control of, and he had started to spend these funds as he wished.  It was therefore a lie that he would have to use his own funds if necessary, because he was at that stage not using his own funds, but the deceased’s funds, even for his own personal expenditure such as buying himself clothes, food, drinks and going to pubs. [18] This lie caused Dominique to send $200 (USD) to the accused on 14 September 2022 to shore him up financially, which money he acknowledged that he received. [19] The accused lied to Dominique when he told her, on 20 September 2022, that there was no stock for making the churros.  The photographs taken by SAPS of the stock kept in the deceased’s garage showed otherwise.  In any event, in an interview with SAPS on 1 October 2022 ( the warning statement ), the accused told WO Scheepers that there was then enough stock at the deceased’s home.  Furthermore, even if, for the sake of argument, there was no longer stock for the churros at the deceased’s home by 20 September, the accused’s version is that he was using the deceased’s bank card in the manner that we was doing during the relevant period to buy such stock.  If it was in fact true that the accused was using the deceased’s bank card to buy stock for the business, which the State disputes, then for this reason too the accused’s statement to Dominique was, at best, a misrepresentation and at worst, an outright lie. [20] On 26 September 2022, the accused lied to Ms Angelika Haeggman, Dominque’s friend, when he told the former that he had made a missing person report regarding the deceased on 22 September 2022 already, at the Simons Town Police Station. No such report had been made by the accused, on that date, or ever. [21] The accused further lied to Mrs Haeggman, when he told her that he had been furnished with a case number by SAPS Simon Town following upon his (non-existent) missing person report, and further that Mrs Haeggman could find the case number on an A4 piece of paper that was in the deceased’s office at his home. No such paper was found by Mrs Haeggman. [22] On 27 September 2022, the accused was seen taking photographs of himself at the deceased’s home, outside in the yard by the pool near where the deceased’s body would later be discovered, and also inside, in one of the bedrooms. [23] The deceased was reported to SAPS as a missing person, by Mrs Haeggman, on 28 September 2022, whereafter SAPS initiated its investigation of a missing person. [24] The accused was interviewed by SAPS on 29 September 2022 as part of SAPS’s missing person investigation.  The version he gave to Detective Cloete, who took down his statement, was diametrically opposed to the version he gave to WO Scheepers in the warning statement on 1 October 2022, after his arrest. [25] On 30 September 2022, the body of the deceased was discovered by SAPS members buried in a shallow grave at his home, in an area close to where the accused was seen posing for photographs of himself some three days earlier. [26] The accused was arrested by the investigating officer, Warrant Officer Steenkamp at the Hout Bay market on 30 September 2022. [27] WO Steenkamp took the accused to his home and searched the premises in the presence of the accused. The deceased’s Standard Bank card was found on top of the accused’s fridge; a Yoco machine was recovered from his home and the accused had in his possession a First National Bank ( FNB ) bank card. [28] A warning statement was taken from the accused on 1 October 2022, during an interview with SAPS which was recorded, and the recording was transcribed and was admitted as evidence.  At this time, SAPS investigation had changed to one of murder and the accused was a suspect. [29] In the result, the accused faces the following charges in this trial: [29.1] Murder, read with the provisions of section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997 ( count 1 ). It is alleged that the murder was planned or premediated and that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused whilst he was committing or attempting to commit or having committed robbery with aggravating circumstances as defined in section 1 of Act 51 of 1977 ( the CPA ).  If found guilty of this charge, the minimum sentence of life imprisonment is applicable. It was confirmed on behalf of the accused, who was represented, that he had been duly informed of this charge and the consequences of a guilty verdict in relation thereto. The Court furthermore confirmed this to be the case. [29.2] Robbery with aggravating circumstances as intended in section 1 of Act 51 of 1977 (read with the provisions of section 51(2), 52(2), 52A and 52B of Act 105 of 1997), and further read with the provisions of sections 262(1) and 260 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 ( the CPA ) ( count 2 ). If found guilty of count 2, a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years is applicable.  The accused was informed of this by his legal representative, which the Court confirmed to be so. [29.3] Counts 3 to 5 , for defeating or obstructing the course of justice, read with the provisions of section 256 of the CPA, by allegedly doing the following: [29.3.1]       cleaning up and tampering with the crime scene in an effort to disguise the murder of the deceased; [29.3.2]       concealing the body of the deceased, and burying the deceased in a shallow grave on the property; and [29.3.3]       creating WhatsApp messages purporting to be from the deceased in order to create the impression that the deceased was still alive and was in Johannesburg for business, and thereby delaying the discovery of his murder. [29.4] Theft ( count 6 ), for allegedly stealing the amount of R140 000 from the deceased’s bank account during the relevant period. [29.5] Count 7 is the charge of contravening the terms of section 49(1) of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002 , read with section 1 , 9 (4), 32 and 34 of that Act.  In this regard the State alleged that the accused, a Zimbabwean national, unlawfully remained in the Republic of South Africa after entering the country on 10 January 2019 and was only issued with a 30 day endorsement. [30]   The accused pleaded not guilty to counts 1 to 6. [31]   He pleaded guilty to count 7, in regard to which he admitted that after being issued with a 30-day endorsement to remain in the Republic when he entered the Republic in 2019, he nevertheless remained here beyond that period until he was arrested on 30 September 2022. The accused’s section 220 admissions [32]   In the admissions made by the accused in terms of section 220 of the CPA, he admitted that, inter alia : [32.1]     The identity of the deceased; that the deceased was known to him and that the accused was employed by the deceased to assist with, inter alia , some general work around the house. [32.2]     The body of the deceased was found on 30 September 2022 buried in the yard of the property. [32.3]     He had access to part of the deceased’s house. In this regard, the evidence showed that he had access to the deceased’s entire property. [32.4]     During the period of 7 to 30 September 2022, he used the deceased’s bank card to make various purchases; and that the deceased’s bank card and Yoco machine were found in his possession.  As will be dealt with below in this judgment, the evidence established that the Yoco machine that was found in the accused’s possession was not the deceased’s machine, but rather that it belonged to the accused’s friend Mr Bel K Kayembe; and that the FNB bank card that was found in the possession of the accused when he was arrested not only belonged to the same Mr Kayembe but was linked to the same Yoco machine found in the accused’s possession at the time of his arrest. [32.5]     On 30 September 2022, the deceased was declared dead; a post-mortem examination was performed on his body on 4 October 2022; that the facts and findings as set out in the post-mortem report are correct; and the findings related to the cause of death of the deceased that are noted on that report are correct. [32.6]     From the time of the infliction of the injuries found on the deceased until the time of the post-mortem examination the body of the deceased did not sustain any further injuries. [32.7]     On 15 September 2023 a DNA analysis was performed on a cigarette butt that was collected at the deceased’s home (also referred to as the crime scene ) and a reference sample collected from the accused confirmed that the DNA obtained from the cigarette butt matched that of a sample that was obtained from the accused, and that these findings are correct and not disputed by the accused. [32.8]     The correctness and authenticity of the deceased’s Standard Bank statement were not disputed. The State’s case [33]   The State called eight witnesses. There was no direct eye-witness evidence in support of the charges against the accused. [34]   The evidence of the State’s witnesses is summarised below. The seriousness of the charges faced by the accused, combined with the circumstantial nature of the State’s evidence against him demand a more detailed summary of the evidence than would ordinarily be the case. Mrs Angelika Haeggman [35]   She met the accused for the first time on about 20 September 2022 after her friend Dominique requested her to go to the deceased’s home to look after the pets because the deceased was missing. [36]   When she arrived at the deceased’s house, the accused was already there, and he opened the gate. The dogs appeared to be distressed, and she did not find the cat on that first day that she went to the house.  At some point, perhaps on that day or a later visit to the house, she took measurements of the dogs as Dominique wanted them shipped to her in France.  Mrs Haeggman ultimately took the dogs to live with her on a later visit to the house. [37]   She later found the cat behind a closed door of one of the bedrooms. There was no food for it in that closed room. Its fur was matted and the cat also looked distressed. She fed it, but the cat disappeared after that. [38]   On 26 September, she asked the accused whether he had filed a missing person report with the police and he told her that he had done so at Simons Town Police Station on 22 September already, and directed her to look for an A4 paper in the office of the house on which paper there would be a case number given to him by the police. She looked and did not find such a paper. [39]   On 27 September 2022, Mrs Haeggman visited the house accompanied by her daughter, whose evidence at the trial will be summarised below.  Dominique had asked her to go to the house to look for the deceased’s passport in the safe.  This, during a time when they were trying to determine the reason for his disappearance, thinking that he may have travelled somewhere. [40]   On that day Mrs Haeggman found a blood smudge on a wall along the passage of the house, but this did not cause her to be suspicious as to her it resembled the appearance of a mosquito smashed against the wall after it had sucked blood. [41]   Her daughter, however, made different observations which caused her to urge her mother to go to the police and report the deceased as missing. [42]   On 28 September 2022, Mrs Haeggman attended at the Simons Town Police Station to enquire as to whether or not a missing person report had been filed by the accused. There was none. She was referred to the police stations in Ocean View and Fish Hoek and no missing person report was found to have been made at those stations either.  It was only then that Mrs Haeggman became suspicious of the accused, and she stopped communicating with him. [43]   She then proceeded to report the deceased as missing with SAPS on 28 September 2022, triggering what was at first an investigation into a missing person. Ms Amaryllis Haeggman [44]   She had earlier been requested by her mother Mrs Haeggman to accompany her to the deceased’s home, and they went together on 27 September 2022.  Her observations inside the house were much more in-depth and were deeply disturbing to her. [45]   She thought that the garage was in a messy state. In the main bedroom she observed what she described as drag marks over the carpet which looked like badly cleaned up marks, as if chemicals had partially burned or ruined the carpet. She saw marks on the doorframe and when she stepped backwards into the corridor and turned to her right, she saw bloody fingerprints on the wall. She furthermore came across what turned out to be blood on the right-hand wall just after the office, and when she turned on the light switch to illuminate the passage that did not have natural light, she could see that there was what looked like dirt stuck in the grooves of the linoleum floors.  The marks she observed were from the bedroom door all the way down the corridor to where the open plan area started. [46]   In the open plan area she saw wipe marks all over the floor. It looked like a lot of liquid had been spilled and an effort had been made to clean it up. [47]   When she met her mother back in the open plan kitchen area, she broke down crying and urged her to file a missing person’s report since no one had spoken to the deceased, whom she was aware had been missing for over two weeks. What she saw at the house made her think that maybe the deceased was not alive or was not in a good state. [48] The marks on the walls, the bloody fingerprints and the marks on the doorframe looked to her like there had been a struggle, and it occurred to her that the house might actually be a crime scene. Constable Adrian Jonker [49]   He is a constable at the Fish Hoek Crime Prevention Unit, and was on duty with Detective Captain Marten on 30 September 2022, when they discovered the deceased’s body at the property. [50]   While they were patrolling the outskirts of the deceased’s home, the wind started picking up and a rotten smell came from the direction of the house. They jumped over the perimeter wall, opened the gate and proceeded inside the property, and followed the smell which seemed to be coming from the garden. [51]   In a corner of the garden Detective Marten started scuffing the ground and that is when the body of the deceased was discovered, buried in the backyard of his house. [52]   What drew their attention to that particular area on the lawn was the fact that the levelling on the grass when compared to the rest of the lawn was higher, and that did not look normal. Detective Captain Jeremy Marten [53]   He testified that the accused had given a version to the family that he had last seen the deceased on the evening of 7 September 2022. The accused had explained that after the Farm Village market closed, he and the deceased drove to the deceased’s home in the latter’s vehicle.  The accused’s duties were to then clean the catering equipment that had been used at the market; and then from there the accused said he got onto his motorbike (which he had earlier left at the deceased’s house) and made his way over Chapman’s Peak to his home in Hout Bay. [54]   The issue that the police had at the outset of the investigation of the missing person report by Mrs Haeggman was that the accused had told her that he had reported the deceased missing at a police station.  The police had searched on their police database and there was no reference to any missing person reported in the police stations in Fish Hoek, Hout Bay, Ocean View and Simons Town. [55]   According to Detective Captain Marten, if the accused had reported the deceased as missing, he would have received an SMS message from SAPS with a reference number. The absence of this raised the police’s suspicion. [56] After a few days into the investigation the police discovered that money was going off the deceased’s bank account. They discovered that there were certain transactions at various stores in Hout Bay. The value of the monies being tapped off the deceased’s bank account was under the amount that would trigger the requirement of a PIN number for authorisation, i.e., the transactions were for the amounts of R500 and below.  What was further observed on the deceased’s bank statement was that suddenly, from a certain date, there were taps from a Yoco machine of many consecutive amounts of R500.00, which could occur sometimes twenty (20) times or more a day, and these payments were coming off the deceased’s bank account. [57]   SAPS then visited some of the stores that they could see reflected on the deceased’s bank statement in order to ascertain if there was CCTV footage that they could view.  At the Engen garage in Hout Bay, the investigating officer WO Steenkamp was able to retrieve CCTV footage that showed the accused going into the store on the same day as there was a transaction in this store, according to the deceased’s bank statement. [58]   Given these activities, the focus of the police was then drawn to the accused as a person of interest in the investigation of first, the disappearance and thereafter the murder of the deceased. In addition, after Ms Haeggman’s observations at the house were revealed to the police, Detective Captain Marten requested the assistance of the provincial Crime Scene Investigation team ( CSI ) to do a forensic examination of the interior of the house. [59]   WO Steenkamp and the forensic team then went to the deceased’s house on 29 September 2022, and the CSI team then conducted what the witness referred to as a blue star test, the process of which entailed a chemical spray being applied to the areas that were suspected of having blood. This revealed that there had been blood and blood marks in the passage of the house, and that there were clear signs of a struggle. [60]      The witness testified that at some stage, according to Mrs Haeggman, the accused had told her that the accused had received a WhatsApp message from the deceased telling him not to worry; that he was in Johannesburg and was alright; and that he (the accused) was not to tell anyone.   The police did not believe in the authenticity of this message, given what they knew and suspected at the time. [61]   Referring back to 7 September 2022, the date when the accused told the police that he had left the market with the deceased to the latter’s home, the police were able to confirm from a CCTV camera on a private residence about a few hundred meters from the deceased’s house that the deceased and the accused did indeed arrive home in the deceased’s vehicle at about 20h29 on that evening (which was a Wednesday), and that the accused left the deceased’s residence approximately an hour later, at 21h21 on his motorbike, which was later seen going over Chapman’s Peak in the direction of Hout Bay. This led Detective Captain Marten to believe that if the accused had murdered the deceased (who was then a missing person when these investigations were unfolding), then his body would have to be at the house or either just behind the house at the bottom of the mountain, because the house was located at the foot of the mountain. An additional factor in regard to this suspicion was the fact that the accused left the deceased’s house on his motorbike, and there would have been nowhere to transport the body on a motorbike. [62]   On 30 September 2022, Detective Captain Marten returned to the house together with Const. Jonker. They searched the base of the mountain first, and then after Const. Jonker indicated to him a strong smell they proceeded onto the property. [63]   As they passed the pool area on the property, the smell got stronger and on the flowerbed between the neighbour’s wall and the deceased’s property the witness observed that the soil was upset. The witness then got down on his knees at the area of the disturbed soil.  He started digging with his hands and about a foot under the soil, he found a body wrapped up in what looked like a white bedsheet. [64]   As soon as he was satisfied that it was in fact a human body he contacted the provincial CSI team to return to the house.  He then handed the scene over to the investigating officer, WO Steenkamp. [65]   While they were waiting for the forensic team to arrive at the crime scene, Detective Captain Marten noticed a cigarette butt in an area close to where the deceased’s body was found, about 10 meters from the body. He notified the CSI team who collected it and sealed it in a bag for examination.  It is this cigarette butt which in his section 220 admissions the plaintiff admitted belonged to him, after the DNA from the cigarette butt matched the DNA obtained from him. [66]   Furthermore, on 27 September 2022, some 20 days after the deceased’s disappearance, the accused photographed himself in the deceased’s house, sitting on his furniture and standing right there where the cigarette butt was found, close to the deceased’s shallow grave. Evidence of the warning statement – Warrant Officer Joe Scheepers [67]   This witness was called to place evidence of the warning statement before the Court.  The warning statement was taken on 1 October 2022 when the accused was now a suspect in a murder investigation, by means of a recording of the accused’s interview with WO Scheepers, which was thereafter transcribed, and the transcript was read into the record by WO Scheepers. [68]   Ms Andrews for the accused indicated that she had consulted with the accused and he did not dispute the contents of warning statement. She confirmed that the warning statement also had an audio recording and that the transcribed warning statement corresponds with the audio recording of the interview with the accused.  This is important, because later on in his evidence under cross examination, the accused sought to distance himself from the contents of this very warning statement whose contents he had not disputed at this stage in the trial. [69]   The accused said the following, in summary and in relevant part, to WO Scheepers, in the presence of WO Steenkamp, as read into the record and reflecting the undisputed contents of the warning statement. [70] On the morning of 7 September 2022, the accused arrived at the deceased’s house to assist with preparations to go to the Farm Village in Noordhoek.  The deceased was with his friend Bernard.  At about 16h00 the accused and the deceased proceeded to the Farm Village market.  After the market had ended they returned to the deceased’s house in the latter’s vehicle.  Bernard was still there.  They dropped off the equipment that they had used at the market, after which the accused then took his motorbike and left the deceased with Bernard. The accused proceeded to his home in the Hout Bay area. [71]   The next day on 8 September 2022, he then went to the deceased’s house in the morning and upon finding the gate locked, he jumped over the perimeter wall to access the house. He opened a main door that was not locked and went inside. [72]   He found blood on the floor in the lounge. He wiped it using a dishtowel which he afterwards washed in the sink. He told WO Scheepers that he knew that the house was a crime scene already. The accused in his evidence denied that he said this to WO Scheepers.  Furthermore, he denied in his evidence under cross examination that he told WO Scheepers that the amount of blood he saw was the size of a saucer. Both denials were unconvincing as the undisputed recording of the warning statement, supported by the undisputed transcript thereof, speaks for itself. [73]   The accused then found a remote control which he took and used to open the gate. Before he went out, he took the deceased’s bank card. He found the bank card in the deceased’s drawer, in one of the cupboards in the lounge. He said that he had known the deceased for two years and knew where his bank stuff was.  He took the deceased’s bank card and then left the house. [74] As soon as he got to his place in Hout Bay after leaving the deceased’s house on 8 September, he received a WhatsApp message on his phone. The accused speculated that the message was from the friend he had left the accused with – Bernard.  The message said: “ For whatever you have seen and if you say that out I am coming after you and your wife.” He believed that the message was referring to what he said he had seen at the deceased’s house – the blood. For this reason, the accused told WO Scheepers, he could not go to the police for fear that ‘ [he] was going to be hunted, or [his] wife was going to be hunted.’ [75]   The accused, however, kept the deceased’s bank card, which he told WO Scheepers he used very often. [76]   When WO Scheepers asked the accused why Bernard would have the accused’s phone number when the accused had only met him twice (including on 7 September), the accused could not answer this question, even when he admitted to WO Scheepers that he had not given his cell number to Bernard. [77]   WO Scheepers then asked the accused: “ But you realise that the utilisation of the bank card is actually a criminal offence.” To which the accused replied: “ I do” . The accused stated that he used the deceased’s bank card every day, to buy his pants, food and drinks; that he kept the bank card with him until his arrest on 30 September 2022, and that the bank card was recovered from the accused’s home. [78] From 8 September, the accused returned to the house daily to feed the pets at the request of Dominique and he did so except on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays (the days of the Hout Bay market).  He was using the motorbike that the deceased had bought for him to get around. When he was there to feed the pets, he told WO Scheepers that he checked the house and the premises, and he did not see anything untoward.  He went to the house for about a week and a half after 7 September, to feed the pets. [79]   After 10 days he had to share the remote with Mrs Haeggman and she took over the responsibility for the pets.  The accused only returned to the house when he wanted to take stock for the Hout Bay market, which he was continuing to run in the absence of the deceased. [80]   He returned to the house on the 28 th September to fetch some stock. He told WO Scheepers that there was enough stock in the garage of the deceased’s house.  When he was at the house on the 28 th he noticed some items missing, such as a WIFI router, a MacBook and an inverter. He had by then received some photographs of certain areas of the house from Dominique depicting blood on the walls and on the bedroom carpet - she had sent them to him on the 26 th .  Dominique had herself received these photos from Mrs Haeggman. The accused told WO Scheepers that he then looked around the house on that day and noticed what looked like blood to him in the passage next to the office door, and on the carpet in the bedroom. He nevertheless took the stock he needed and left for the Hout Bay market. The Court notes that the 28 th of September 2022 was a Wednesday, and therefore there was no market that the accused was busy with on that day. [81]   WO Scheepers testified that the only explanation for why the accused did not report the deceased as missing is that he wanted to buy himself more time to syphon money out of the deceased’s account. He was tapping funds off the account, to the maximum amount of R500 (or less) that did not require a PIN, up to 20 times a day on some days from about 11 September 2022 until 28 September 2022. [82] In the view of this Court, this motive for the failure to report the deceased as missing is not only plausible, but it is the most plausible explanation and motive in the circumstances of this case, in particular when regard is had to the accused’s attempts at explaining exactly why he did not report the deceased, whom he regarded as a father, as a missing person for a whole 23 days.  This will be dealt with more fully below in the analysis of the accused’s evidence. [83] WO Scheepers testified that at no point during his interview with the accused during the taking of the warning statement did the accused tell him that he used the deceased’s bank card in order to buy stock for the business. On the contrary, the accused told WO Scheepers that there was enough stock at the deceased’s garage, and that the card transactions were of him buying himself clothes, drinks, food and generally entertaining himself. Detective Christiaan Cloete [84]   On 28 September 2022, Detective Cloete and WO Steenkamp attended at the deceased’s house, where they met with Mrs Haeggman and the accused.  They were then shown around the deceased’s house. [85] Detective Cloete took a statement from the accused on 29 September 2022, at a time when the police were investigating the case of a missing person, following the missing person report made by Mrs Haeggman the previous day – before the discovery of the deceased’s body and the accused’s arrest. [86]   What the accused told Detective Cloete was very different in material respects from what he told WO Scheepers merely two days later when he was taking the warning statement. [87]   The accused told Detective Cloete that the deceased dropped him off at the accused’s home driving his white Fiat on 8 September 2022, which he said was a Wednesday evening.  The 8 th of September 2022 was in fact a Thursday. The 7 th of September, which is the day when CCTV footage confirms the deceased being seen arriving at his home driving his white Fiat with the accused, and the accused leaving an hour later on his motorbike, was the Wednesday. The 7 th September is also the date on which the accused told WO Scheepers he returned with the deceased to the latter’s house. [88]   The accused continued to tell Detective Cloete that the deceased was then supposed to drop stock at the accused’s place on Thursday 9 September for the market on Friday, Saturday and Sunday in Hout Bay.  The 9 th September was in fact a Friday not a Thursday, and the Hout Bay market was to take place on Friday the 9 th , Saturday the 10 th and on Sunday the 11 th of September according to the accused’s own evidence. So if there was a market to attend to on Thursday 8 September when the accused says he went to the deceased’s home to pick up stock, the Hout Bay market was not that market, on his own version. Given the accused’s evidence that after the deceased disappeared he only operated the Hout Bay market which occurred only from Fridays to Sundays, it is safe to conclude on the evidence that the accused did not attend to or operate any market on Thursday 8 September 2022 after he went to the deceased’s house, saw blood which he wiped off, and picked up his Standard Bank card.  That he had taken possession of the deceased’s bank card on Thursday 8 September is consistent with the activities seen on the deceased’s bank statement on 8 September already, when the first repeated and consecutive taps to the maximum of R500 to the same merchant (i.e., Don C) can be seen. Two other transactions to this same merchant were for under the amount of R500.  All these seven transactions to Don C on 8 September 2022 could be authorised for payment without requiring a PIN number. [89]   So then, to correct the dates and stay within the accused’s version, the deceased dropped the accused off at his place on Wednesday 7 September (the CCTV footage obtained confirms this date); this was the last date on which the deceased was seen alive in the company of the accused; the deceased was supposed to drop off stock at the accused’s place on Thursday 8 September for the Hout Bay market to be held from Friday 9 September until Sunday 11 September.  But let’s leave aside for the moment the confusion about the dates and days and continue with the accused’s version to Detective Cloete when the investigation was about a deceased who was then thought to be missing, rather than a dead person. [90]   According to the accused, the deceased did not show up on the Thursday and there was no message from him. The accused then drove with his motorbike on Friday the 9 th to the deceased’s place.  The gate was locked and he could not get insider the yard. [91]   This is the first material discrepancy from what he told WO Scheepers in the warning statement and in the accused’s own evidence during the trial.  He told WO Scheepers on 1 October, that he made this trip to the deceased’s house on Thursday 8 September, and that when he found the gate locked, he jumped over the perimeter wall and gained access to the house. [92]   Second, the accused did not tell Detective Cloete that after he entered the house, he found blood on the lounge floor which he wiped off, and that he proceeded to take possession of the deceased’s bank card. [93]   Instead, what he told Detective Cloete is that after finding the gate locked on 9 September and he could not get insider the yard, he returned to the deceased’s house on 12 September (which would have been the Monday) after he had received a message saying the following: “ Hello Trevor, it is Pierre. How was the market? I want you to go home and check on the gate. There is a big stone, check down, there are keys. Feed the dogs and cat. Change the water in the bowls of dogs.” [94]   The accused asked the alleged deceased if he was OK and he texted back: “ I am okay. I am in Johannesburg for my appointment. Do not tell anyone that I am in Johannesburg.” [95]   None of this was told to WO Scheepers during the warning statement. [96]   After receiving the above message the accused then returned to the deceased’s house on Monday, 12 September and found the remote for the house under the rock, purportedly as directed by the deceased in his earlier message.  He opened the garage with the remote, and got some stock from the garage for the Hout Bay market. He took the stock to Hout Bay on his bike.  It must be noted that the Hout Bay market was to be held next on the next Friday the 16 th to Sunday the 18 th September, on the accused’s own version. [97]   The accused went back to the deceased’s house every day to feed the dogs and the cat, but he only noticed the blood in the house on Tuesday, 27 September after Dominique had sent him pictures of blood in the carpet on the main bedroom and on the walls in the house. She sent these pictures to him on 26 September, having herself received those pictures from Mrs Haeggman. It was only then that the accused noticed the blood in the remainder of the house.  He never heard from the deceased again and Dominique told him he could keep the money from the Hout Bay market. [98]   This is the fourth discrepancy from his warning statement, where he told WO Scheepers that he noticed the rest of the blood in the house to which he had been alerted by Doninique on Wednesday, 28 September, when he went to the house to fetch more stock for the Hout Bay market. [99]   The accused did not mention Bernard to Detective Cloete; nor did he mention having received a threatening message after he went to the house on 8 September (or for that matter on 9 September, as per his version to Detective Cloete) which caused him fear from reporting the circumstances to the police. [100] To Detective Cloete, there was rather mention of another gentleman named Yannick who had had a fight with the deceased at the Hout Bay market with the result that the deceased was no longer allowed inside the Hout Bay market. Yannick was not mentioned at all to WO Scheepers during the warning statement. [101] Detective Cloete testified that he asked the accused during the interview how does he support the Hout Bay market that he was running and the accused responded that there was enough stock at the deceased’s house, and furthermore that Dominique had told him that he could keep the cash made from the market to sustain himself.  The accused never mentioned to Detective Cloete that he was still actively buying stock for the market, using the deceased’s bank card. Warrant Officer Dawid Malan Steenkamp [102] He was the investigating officer on the case before he was transferred outside of Cape Town, to Caledon. When the investigation started it was a missing person investigation. He was called out to the deceased’s home by Mrs Haeggman, who had reported the deceased missing on 28 September 2022. [103] As they did a walk through the house, WO Steenkamp decided to contact CSI regarding the marks that appeared in the house. CSI only came out the following day, on 29 September 2022. [104] In the course of his investigation, WO Steenkamp followed up on the cameras as to when last the deceased was seen coming to his house. The house was in a cul de sac .  One of the neighbours had a functioning camera that showed the deceased arriving at his house on the evening of 7 September in his white Fiat, and the accused leaving on his bike approximately an hour later. [105] What he observed during the tour of the house were blood marks from inside the living room, the kitchen, right throughout the house, the whole main hallway, through to the main bedroom as well. He also observed that the third bedroom was a mess. Besides the marks observed, the whole house actually looked relatively orderly except for that third bedroom. [106] He called the CSI team, who went to the house on 29 September 2022 and took over the scene.  After they had conducted their tests and the amount of blood throughout the house was revealed, one of the crime scene investigators told WO Steenkamp that with this amount of blood in this house, the person involved was definitely not alive.  This turned out to be true. [107] When WO Steenkamp returned to the house the next day on 30 September 2022, the wallet that he had earlier observed in the main bedroom on 28 September had been moved to the dining room table. He was called by Detective Captain Marten to the house, when he was confronted with the discovery of the deceased’s body in the shallow grave on his own property.  By then Detective Captain Marten had already called CSI to come out to the scene again. [108] Thereafter WO Steenkamp then sought section 205 authorisations into the deceased’s bank account. Dominique had also complained to him that there were transactions going off the deceased’s account that were not authorised.  After he obtained the deceased’s bank statement, he saw that money had been going off his account at an alarming rate, daily, including the R500 transactions that were tapped off repeatedly from 8 September 2022. [109] What caught his interest was a transaction that was at an Engen garage that went off on a certain day and at a certain time. He went to said Engen garage in Hout Bay and enquired from the manager, who gave him full permission to view the video footage of that particular day. What WO Steenkamp observed from the footage was the accused purchasing four red bulls and a pack of ice, using the deceased’s bank card. This transaction occurred at 03h32, in the early hours of the morning of 26 September 2022. [110] He was also told by Mrs Haeggman who reported the deceased missing that the accused had told her that he himself had reported the deceased as a missing person. When WO Steenkamp enquired at Fish Hoek, Ocean View and Simons Town Police Stations he found no missing person report. [111] The witness then went on to testify about the photographs found on the accused’s phone, the timestamp of which showed that on 27 September, 3 days before the deceased’s body was discovered, the accused was taking photographs of himself on the deceased’s property, not far from where the shallow grave was found. Another picture taken on the same day was taken by the dining room table, and another was a picture in which the accused appeared to be leaning against a headboard in a bedroom. WO Steenkamp testified that that picture appeared to have been taken in the messy third bedroom he had earlier testified about. [112] When CSI arrived on 30 September and exhumed the body of the deceased, it was wrapped in a white sheet. He believed that the white sheet in which the deceased’s body was discovered wrapped in in the shallow grave came from this third bedroom, which was in an upside down state and did not have a duvet. [113] The witness testified about the arrest of the accused on 30 September 2022. After the discovery of the deceased’s body on that day, he and a colleague went to the Hout Bay market and effected the arrest of the accused. He told him his rights, as well as the reasons for his arrest, placed him in cuffs and escorted him to a marked police vehicle. They then decided to go to the accused’s house, first of all to confirm where he stayed but also to see if there was any property at the accused’s house that was linked to this case. [114] When SAPS got to the accused’s house, WO Steenkamp asked the accused where the deceased’s bank card was, because he knew by then from the section 205’s that he had obtained and the video footage he had seen, that the accused had been using the deceased’s bank card.  The accused told him that it was on top of the fridge, and that is where WO Steenkamp found it. Also, inside the house WO Steenkamp found a Yoco machine that was pointed out to him by the accused. He collected this, the bank card and some clothes and then booked these under the SAP13 register at Fish Hoek Police Station. [115] At that stage however, when the accused was arrested and this Yoco machine was found at his house, as well as when WO Steenkamp was testifying before this Court, the link between the Yoco machine and any transactions from the deceased’s bank account was not known.  In other words, it was not known where the funds went to that were repeatedly tapped using the deceased’s bank account, in particular those that appeared to be going off to an entity by the name of LOVEx.  Except for those transactions that were paid to stores such as the Engen garage, RTs Pub the payments to whom were clearer, there were hundreds of taps in the amount of R500 to LOVEx using a Yoco machine and it was not known who this Yoco machine belonged to, and how it was linked to the accused and his activities with the deceased’s bank card during the period from 8 until 30 September. [116] Another item that the accused had in his possession when he was arrested was the FNB card, which was also booked into the SAP13 register. [117] The witness testified that before his last sighting with the accused on 7 September, the deceased’s bank statement revealed that he had used his own card to purchase at Food Lovers Market on 6 September. He testified that all the circumstantial evidence pointed to the accused having had a motive for killing the deceased - he had access to the deceased’s property; exclusive access to the deceased’s bank account and card; and he did not report the deceased as missing during the entire period whilst he was spending the accused’s money at will. Doctor Yolande Van der Heyde [118] The post-mortem on the deceased was conducted by Dr Anez Awath-Behari. Dr Van der Heyde, a forensic pathologist whose experience and expertise were not placed in dispute, had familiarised herself with and reviewed the post-mortem report of Dr Behari, and came to Court to place the findings of that report into evidence.  The post-mortem was performed on 4 October 2022. [119] According to the post-mortem report: [119.1]        The deceased’s body appeared to be in various stages of decomposition when it was found in the shallow grave on his property. [119.2]        There was partial skeletonization of the face with loss of eyes, cartilage of the nose and the lips and mouth which was packed with dense brown mud. [119.3]        The rest of the deceased’s body showed features of saponification with complete sloughing of the palms and feet, some of which were removed for fingerprints. [119.4]        Saponification was also noted on the anterior aspect of both thighs. [119.5]        The deceased’s body presented covered in a white shroud (which had the appearance of a white sheet on the common cause photographs taken at the crime scene), covering the neck area and applied over the arms and the feet anteriorly. This was bound by a red and white twill like rope with two fixed knots applied across both arms, over the front of the neck extending over the back of the neck; the legs had been bound in cellophane tape which had unravelled on the anterior aspects of the ankles. The deceased appeared to have been wrapped in the white sheet whilst he was fully dressed. [119.6]        Dr Behari had concluded in her report that the cause of death was unnatural, and that the death was caused by penetrating incised wounds of the chest and neck, and possible compression of the neck by a ligature was to be considered. In short, the deceased was stabbed multiple times and was possibly strangled as well. [119.7]        In her evidence, Dr Van der Heyde concluded that Dr Behari’s examination and findings supported a conclusion that the deceased had been dead for at least two to three weeks before his body was discovered in the shallow grave. [119.8]        Based on her professional opinion and the state of decay of the deceased’s body, it was in line with the deceased having died on or about 7 September 2022. Detective Captain Jeremy Marten [120] He was recalled to give evidence on the downloads obtained from the accused’s cell phone. These pertained to WhatsApp messages obtained therefrom; audio recordings; and screenshots. Detective Capt. Marten was furthermore recalled to testify regarding information of the bank transactions of the deceased. [121] The accused’s phone was forensically downloaded by what he referred to as the war room, the unit in SAPS concerned will cell phone downloads.  They put the downloads into three categories, namely images (photographs), screenshots and WhatsApp’s, which were found on the accused’s cell phone. [122] He started with the deceased’s bank account transactions. There were numerous transactions that appeared to have occurred from the deceased’s bank account from 8 September when he was deemed missing. But more concerning were the numerous Yoco machine transactions that came off his bank account.   He explained that a Yoco machine is used by merchants to facilitate payments into their accounts resulting from purchases made by consumers who buy from them.  Some of the first entries reflected on 8 September already reflected the merchant Don C. The deceased’s bank statement showed that seven transactions to this merchant were tapped off the deceased’s bank account on 8 September 2022,  five of them for the maximum amount of R500, which was the amount capable of being paid before a PIN was required. The transactions that occurred on 8 September only reflected on the deceased’s bank account two days later on 10 September. An analysis of the deceased’s bank statement showed that this was typical of most if not all other Yoco transactions, i.e., transactions tended to reflect on the deceased’s bank account one or two days after they had actually been tapped with his bank card. [123] In the early days of the deceased’s disappearance there were also various transactions tapped to an entity named Bay H (which, because of the letter H the Detective Captain assumed was located in the Hout Bay area); to RT’s Pub and the Workshop. [124] Thereafter, from about 10 September until 28 September, there were repeated purchases paid for by means of a Yoco machine from the deceased’s Standard bank card to an entity reflected on his statement as LOVEx, to the maximum amount of R500 on each tap. On 11 September, purchases to LOVEx for R500 using the Yoco machine were made 18 times; on 12 September they were made 20 times; on 13 September they were made 20 times; on 14 September they were made 16 times. And the pattern continued of payments to this entity, using a Yoco machine, until 28 September 2022. [125] As for the photos downloaded from the accused’s phone, evidence was led of a photograph taken on 18 September at about 20h31 at RT’s Pub and Grill which, when regard is had to the deceased’s bank statement, correlated with two transactions that were paid to RT’s Pub, in the amount of R400 and R300 on that same day. [126] Furthermore, there were two photographs of the accused taken at the deceased’s house on 27 September 2022, inside and outside the deceased’s house by the pool, near where the deceased was found in a shallow grave. [127] Then there were a number of screenshots recovered from the accused’s phone. The witness testified that screenshots are created when the user of a cell phone take photos of what appears on the screen of the phone. Whilst analysing the accused’s phone Detective Capt. Marten came across six screenshots showing transactions from the deceased’s bank account, including his bank balance.  One of these screenshots showed that on 13 September 2022, some five days after the deceased disappeared, the balance in his account was R403 960.38. [128] There was a screenshot dated 12 September 2022 where somebody claiming to be the deceased said the following:  “ Hello Trevor, it’s Pierre, how was the market. I want you to go home and check on the gate, there is a big stone, check down there, there are keys. Feed the dogs and cats, change the water in the bowls of the dog.” The  accused apparently responded: ” Hi, sir, we are worried, are you OK.” The alleged deceased wrote: “ I’m OK, I’m in Johannesburg for my appointments, do not tell anybody that I’m in Johannesburg.” The accused responded: “ Oh okay, so when will you be back?” And the conversation ended there, according to the witness.  This is the conversation that the accused told Detective Cloete about but made no mention of to WO Scheepers during the warning statement. [129] There was a section 205 subpoena that was served on the cell phone company relating to the cell number of the alleged deceased that sent these messages to the accused.  According to the witness, there was almost no evidence linked to the number. It was as though the number had been created for 3 to 4 days and then it went dead quiet.  Detective Capt. Marten suspected that the accused had bought a sim card solely for the purposes of fabricating these messages to himself, to make it appear as though the deceased was still alive and was communicating with him. [130] Moving on to the WhatsApp messages found on the accused’s phone. Of particular interest in the context of a critical missing piece of the puzzle were communications that the accused had with a person named Bel.   This turned out to be the Bel Kayembe referred to previously, and who was ultimately linked to the Yoco machine recovered from the accused’s home during his arrest. [131] Their communications started on 6 September 2022. This day was a Tuesday. On that date, the accused asked Bel: [131.1]        “ Did you manage to get the thing?” [131.2]        Bel responded: “ I’m going today. By when do you need it?” [131.3]        The accused responded, “ The weekend.” That would be the weekend that began on Friday 9 September until Sunday 11 September. [132] This timeline is important, because from the evidence presented to the Court, the deceased was still alive then on 6 September 2022, when the accused appeared to be hatching a plan to acquire a Yoco machine which would facilitate him syphoning money out the deceased’s bank account,  which he planned to start doing by the coming weekend.  As stated earlier, the deceased’s bank statement showed that the deceased was alive and made a purchase at Food Lovers Market on 6 September whilst the accused, who described the deceased as being like a father to him, was already, unbeknownst to the deceased, putting his plans in motion. The deceased was last seen alive with the accused on the following day. [133] On the 7 September, Bel and the accused were still searching for ‘ the thing’ , because the accused asked Bel: “ Are you wining?” and Bel responded: “ I’m going there again tomorrow to get it they didn’t know where they put… But my baby bro looking.…I’ll let you know tomorrow.” On 9 September, Bel wrote to the accused: “ You’ll be the first to know once I got good news but I’m not leaving here till I find it.” Later on the 9 th September Bel sent the accused two voice notes, in the one saying: “ How could I let you down” and the second one he said: “ I found it, I’ll sort you out.” Whatever the item was that the accused had requested from Bel on 6 September, which Bel had been searching for since had now clearly been found. [134] According to Detective Capt. Marten, the ‘ thing’ that they were discussing and which Bel ultimately found was the Yoco machine.  Detective Capt. Marten testified that he had called Bel during the course of the investigation and the latter confirmed to him telephonically that he and the accused were discussing a Yoco machine that Bel’s brother had.  The witness testified that Bel refused to go to the police station when asked by the police to present himself, as he was afraid.  SAPS searched for Bel as he was suspected to be an accomplice, but he was never found. [135] The day on which Bel found the Yoco machine – 9 September – is consistent with the day on which a payment using a Yoco machine to LOVEx first appeared on the deceased’s bank statement, i.e., that same date.  It was a payment for R10 and on 10 September two payments for R300 and then R60 were made using a Yoco machine in favour of LOVEx.  But the deluge of Yoco machine payments to LOVEx really began from 11 September until 28 September, during which period amounts of R500 were tapped on the LOVEx Yoco machine a total of 255 times, removing R127 500 from the deceased’s bank account to the LOVEx entity. [136] The link between Bel, LOVEx, the Yoco machine and the accused starts to appear in their WhatsApp messages on 13 September 2022, when Bel wrote the following to the accused: “ Test this out quick Hi Tray. Make a R100.00 payment to LOVExLIGHT using this link: h[...]” . Later on the same day, Bel again wrote to the accused: “ Hi Tray. Make a R1 000.00 payment to LOVExLIGHT using this link: h[...]. [137] WhatsApp messages were also retrieved from the accused’s phone of conversations that he had with Dominique, and with Mrs Haeggman.  Their contents have been alluded to in evidence already set out above. In summary they confirm that the accused was asked on at least two occasions by Dominique to report the deceased missing; their discussions regarding the feeding of the pets. They reflect Dominique’s genuine concern about the deceased and the accused appearing to share the same concern; and all the information he omitted to tell her, such as about the blood he found and wiped off on the 8 September. The messages confirm the accused telling Dominique he had to access the deceased’s house by jumping over the perimeter fence on 12 September; no mention of the fact that he had possession of her husband’s bank account even as he was accepting extra money from her; and that there was no stock at the deceased’s house. [138] The WhatsApp messages further confirm that he told Mrs Haeggman that he had reported the deceased missing on 22 September at Simons Town police station when he had in fact never done so. This lie was further corroborated by information obtained from the accused’s cell phone records, which showed that he never left the Hout Bay area on that day. [139] After the evidence of this witness, the State closed its case. State’s application to re-open its case [140] The State thereafter made application for leave to re-open its case in order to lead further evidence that only became available to it after the closure its case. The evidence pertained to information obtained from the Yoco company which was relevant and material to the issues that arose in the trial. The evidence also pertained to the bank account that received the funds that were tapped off the deceased’s bank card using said Yoco machine, as that bank account was directly linked to the Yoco machine in question.  Furthermore, the FNB card associated with this bank account was found in the possession of the accused at the time of his arrest. [141] The application, which was made before the accused started leading his evidence in defence, was opposed by the accused. [142] The State explained that during the course of the investigation, the investigating officer made several attempts to make contact with representatives of Yoco in order to obtain the required information.  These attempts were unsuccessful at the time due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. [143] During the relevant period, Yoco’s offices in South Africa closed as a result of pandemic-related restrictions. Their employees were working remotely and could not be reached through the usual channels. The company’s operations were significantly disrupted, and communication was delayed. [144] Further, when operations eventually resumed, it transpired that Yoco had relocated to a different address.  The investigating officer was therefore required to take additional investigative steps to locate the new premises and establish contact with the relevant individuals.  These efforts were ultimately successful during the June 2025 court recess period, at which stage the State’s case had already been closed. [145] The accused’s version that was put to the State witnesses was that he was in possession of the bank card of the deceased for essential stock for the market. He maintained that he had no knowledge of the money that was stolen from the account of the deceased by way of tapping and certainly no knowledge of where the funds were directed to after the tapping of the card. The evidence from Yoco is material as it establishes a direct operational link between the Yoco machine used to process the transactions; the FNB account into which funds were being deposited; and the accused, who was found in possession of the FNB account tied to that very account. [146] The State submitted that the new evidence fills a crucial evidentiary gap as it connects the flow of the stolen funds from the deceased’s account to the Yoco machine and ultimately to the FNB account under Bel’s name and account; whose card the accused had in his possession when he was arrested. [147] Furthermore, it was submitted that the evidence sought to be introduced largely consists of digital financial records obtained from Yoco, including the transaction history and associated bank account details linked to a specific card machine. Such evidence is not subject to manipulation or tailoring by the prosecution, as it is generated and maintained by a third party.  Accordingly, this is not newly created evidence, nor does it rely on the subjective interpretation or recollection of a witness. [148] I granted the application for the State to re-open its case, for the reasons that the evidence sought to be placed before this Court by the State is relevant, material and it is in the interests of justice that it be introduced. [149] I am satisfied that there was no deliberate delay or negligence in failing to secure the evidence earlier, and that the application to re-open the State’s case is made in good faith.  Furthermore, permitting the re-opening of the State’s case will not prejudice the accused, and will serve the broader interests of justice and the fair adjudication of this case. The further evidence of the State – Warrant Officer Dawid Malan Steenkamp [150] To place his further evidence in context he reiterated that, as the investigating officer in the case, he effected the arrest of the accused at the Hout Bay market on 30 September, whereafter he took the accused to the accused’s house. [151] At the house, the deceased’s Standard Bank card was found on top of the accused’s fridge, after the accused, who was present during the search of his home, informed the warrant officer that this is where it would be found. [152] Next to the fridge the warrant officer found a blue Yoco machine, these items and other minor items of clothing were taken and booked into the SAP13 register at Fish Hoek Police Station. [153] The Yoco machine had serial number 2[...]. [154] As stated earlier, another item found on the accused’s person during his arrest, and which was also booked into the SAP13, was a FNB card which ended with the numbers 4398.  An affidavit made in terms of section 236 of the CPA by an employee of FNB confirmed that this FNB card ending with numbers 4398 was issued by FNB to Mr Bel K Kayembe who held a bank account with number 6[...] with FNB. [155] Furthermore, copies of Mr Kayembe’s bank account for the period 26 August 2022 until 6 October 2022 were furnished by FNB by means of a section 236 affidavit furnished to the Court. [156] An affidavit made in terms of section 236 of the CPA by an employee of Yoco Technologies (Pty) Ltd confirmed that the following details were linked to the Yoco machine with serial number 2[...]: [156.1]        Trading name: LOVExLIGHT. [156.2]        Owner name Bel Kayembe. [156.3]        Banking details linked to the Yoco machine: FNB savings account number 6[...] held by Bel Kayembe. [156.4]        The first transaction was made on 9 September 2022. [156.5]        There were no transactions prior to 7 September 2022. [157] The Yoco machine in question, the deceased’s Standard Bank card as well Mr Kayembe’s FNB card were handed up as exhibits. [158] The State thereafter rested its case. The credibility of the State’s witnesses [159] The police officers who testified in this trial all had extensive experience in their respective fields of crime investigations.  Their experience ranged from 11 to 33 years, and their observations such as noting blood smudges, disturbed crime scenes, evidence of CCTV footage, and tracking of financial transactions was demonstrative of their objective and professional handling of the case, lending credibility to their testimony. [160] The testimony of the several witnesses, including Mrs Haeggman and her daughter, as well the multiple police officers consistently described the timeline over which the events unfolded from 6 to 30 September; the conditions of the deceased’s house; how and when the deceased was ultimately reported missing; and the discovery of the body.  Their accounts were honest descriptions of what they witnessed, without embellishment or taking away anything to suit any particular narrative. [161] This corroboration between the civilian and police witnesses strengthens the reliability of their accounts, showing no contradictions or material discrepancies in any material respects. If anything, their evidence laid bare the inconsistencies in the accused’s version and the explanations advanced by him from the time the deceased disappeared to when the investigations into a missing began, culminating in it becoming a murder investigation. [162] None of the State’s witnesses presented any direct evidence linking the accused to the commission of counts 1 to 5, other than telling the Court accounts of what happened at the time, from the disappearance of the deceased to the discovery of his body. [163] The witnesses did not deviate from their evidence, even after cross examination. [164] In all of these circumstances, this Court finds that the credibility of the State witnesses cannot be impugned. The legal principles applicable to circumstantial evidence [165] Circumstantial evidence is not necessarily weaker than direct evidence. Inferences are drawn from circumstantial evidence, and in the process certain rules of logic must be applied. [166] The court should always consider the cumulative effect of all the items of circumstantial evidence. In R v De Villiers [1] it was pointed out that the court should not consider each circumstance in isolation and then give the accused the benefit of any reasonable doubt as to the inference to be drawn from each single circumstance. [167] In the locus classicus in regard to circumstantial evidence, R v Blom , [2] it was held that in reasoning by inference in a criminal case there are two cardinal rules of logic which cannot be ignored. The first rule is that the inference sought to be drawn must be consistent with all the proved facts: if it is not, the inference cannot be drawn. The second rule is that the proved facts should be such that they exclude every reasonable inference from them save the one sought to be drawn: if these proved facts do not exclude all other reasonable inferences, then there must be a doubt whether the inference sought to be drawn is correct. [3] This second rule takes account of the fact that in a criminal case the State should furnish proof beyond reasonable doubt. [168] In R v Reddy [4] Zulman AJA held: In assessing circumstantial evidence one needs to be careful not to approach such evidence upon a piece-meal basis and to subject each individual piece of evidence to a consideration of whether it excludes the reasonable possibility that the explanation given by an accused is true. The evidence needs to be considered in its totality.  It is only then that one can apply the oft-quoted dictum in R v Blom 1939 AD 188 at 202-3 where reference is made to two cardinal rules of logic which cannot be ignored. [169] Although a fair amount of criticism has been directed at the Blom rules by the authors Du Toit et al in the Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Act > ( Du Toit ) for being far from perfect or even satisfactory and raising more questions than answers, [5] I do not believe that the facts of this case necessitate that this Court grapple with the problem questions raised by the learned authors in their criticism. [6] [170] As imperfect as it may be, the Blom test remains law and is binding on this Court. The defence case [171] The accused was the only witness who testified in his defence. [172] His evidence, both in chief and under cross-examination, was far from satisfactory. It was riddled with inconsistencies, and at times was so inconsistent as to be obviously untruthful. I have upfront in this judgment detailed some of the lies - some of which were admitted by the accused under cross-examination; others emerged from the inconsistencies that became apparent from earlier opportunities given to the accused to provide versions under oath; whilst other untruths were inferred from the proved facts. [173] The accused was often an evasive and obstructive witness. He was mendacious, and this did not assist him. All of these factors rendered him an unreliable witness, and one without credibility. [174] In regard to the instances where, as I will outline below, the accused gave false evidence, I am reminded of S v Mtsweni , [7] where the Appellate Division (as it then was) considered the effect of a finding that the accused had given false evidence.  The headnote in this case reads as follows: Although the untruthful evidence or denial of an accused is of importance when it comes to the drawing of conclusions and the determination of guilt, caution must be exercised against attaching too much weight thereto.  The conclusion that, because an accused is untruthful, he therefore is probably guilty must especially be guarded against. Untruthful evidence or a false statement does not always justify the most extreme conclusion. The weight to be attached thereto must be related to the circumstances of each case.  In considering false testimony by an accused, the following matters should, inter alia , be taken into account: (a) the nature, extent and materiality of the lies and whether they necessarily point to a realisation of guilt; (b) the accused’s age, level of development and cultural and social background and standing in so far as they might provide an explanation  for his lies; (c) possible reasons why people might turn to lying, eg because in a given case, a lie might sound more acceptable than the truth; (d) the tendency which might arise in some people to deny the truth out of fear of being held to be involved in a crime, or because they fear that an admission of their involvement in an incident or crime, however trivial the involvement, would lead to the danger of an inference of participation and guilt out of proportion in the truth. [175] The lies or untruths told by the accused, both by omission and commission, were material and in some instances they were clearly told because they sounded more acceptable than the truth. The only reasonable inference to draw from these untruths was that they were told by the accused because the truth pointed to his guilt. [176] The accused did not explain in his evidence the inconsistencies, gaps and contradictions in his previous statements made under oath, first to Detective Cloete on 29 September 2022 and then to WO Scheepers on 1 October 2022.  I have detailed these earlier in this judgment. The Court cannot accept both versions. One of them, or some aspects of both of them must be true. Neither one of these different versions, in any event assist the accused, in terms of providing a reasonable explanation to this Court in regard to various aspects of his conduct from 6 September until 1 October 2022, in relation to which there is objective evidence that contradicts his version. [177] Let us begin with what the accused says he found at the deceased’s house on 8 September 2022. The deceased was absent from his house, to which the accused went after the deceased had failed to meet the accused to deliver stock.  After jumping over the perimeter fence and gaining access to the house, the accused was met with blood on the floor in the lounge, which he proceeded to wipe off the floor.  Other than to wipe this blood from the floor, his evidence is that on that first day he took no further steps to look for the deceased inside the remainder of the house, or to look for any other signs of foul play in circumstances where he had formed the view, after seeing the blood, that he was dealing with a crime scene.  This Court rejects the accused’s denial whilst under cross-examination that he told WO Scheepers that he knew already then that he was dealing with a crime scene. That he said so is corroborated by his own voice on the recorded warning statement, as well as by the transcript thereof which he admitted matches the recording.  His denial of what he had told WO Scheepers was therefore a naked lie. Removing the blood was tampering with what was, on the accused’s own version, a crime scene. [178] Why did the accused not inform Detective Cloete that he had jumped over the deceased’s perimeter fence to gain access to the house when he first went there; and that he thereafter found blood on the lounge floor and thereafter removed the deceased’s bank card? The accused did not explain this at all in his evidence, nor did he explain why he did not inform Detective Cloete that, after attending at the deceased’s house, he received a threatening WhatsApp message; or that he had left the deceased with Bernard on the evening of the 7 th of the September. [179] The accused did not inform Dominique either that he had seen blood at the deceased’s house which he had wiped off.  In evidence he could not furnish a reasonable explanation for why he did not communicate this to her – she being the only relative of the deceased’s with whom he was communicating and who was looking for him. [180] Furthermore, the accused admitted under cross-examination that he had lied to Dominique when he told her that he had not been able to gain access to the deceased’s home on 12 September, and that he therefore had to jump over the perimeter fence. This was a lie because the accused was by then already in possession of the keys to the deceased’s house, having taken possession thereof on 8 September. [181] The only reasonable inference to draw from all of these failures is that the accused sought to conceal his own involvement in the disappearance of the deceased; and he furthermore wanted to conceal what could be construed as the motives for his role in the deceased’s disappearance. [182] Which brings us to the next question. Why did the accused remove the deceased’s bank card from his house? He gave many different answers to this question during his evidence.  First, he needed money in order to buy stock so that he could continue the Hout Bay market. He told Detective Cloete, however, on 29 September 2022 that there was enough stock in the deceased’s garage and that is how he was managing to continue with the Hout Bay market.  He furthermore told WO Scheepers on 1 October that there was then enough stock in the deceased’s garage.  When the accused, during cross-examination was asked to isolate and mark on the deceased’s bank statement the transactions that represented purchases for stock, he instead marked all the transactions that were not payments to LOVEx, and could not identify a single one of those that was for stock purchases. [183] Given that, on his own earlier versions - which represents one of the few consistencies between what he told Detective Cloete and WO Scheepers, and at a time when his own recollection was still fresh - he repeated that there was enough stock at all times, he was then asked under-cross examination once again why he took the deceased’s bank card.  The accused then changed his tune - and this was his second version - and said he took the card in order to keep it safe.  In my view the State has established that the deceased’s Standard Bank card and the funds therein were at their unsafest when the card was in the possession of the accused. This is evident from the fact that when the accused took possession of the deceased’s bank card the balance in his bank account was R433 586.93.  Twenty-two days later, after the card had been in the exclusive possession and control of the accused, the deceased’s bank account was R139 921,70 poorer, with the balance standing at R293 665.23 on 30 September 2022. It is safe to say that the accused’s rampage on the deceased’s funds was stopped only by his arrest on 30 September 2022.  Given these undisputed facts, the only reasonable inference is that the accused took possession of the deceased’s bank card so that he could use the funds therein, which did not belong to him, at will. And he concealed this from Detective Cloete and Dominique in order to distance any suspicion from himself for the deceased’s disappearance. [184] The accused then changed tack when pressed further under cross-examination to explain why he took the deceased’s bank card, and gave a third reason which was that he took the deceased’s bank card because he needed it to pay the toll gate fees over Chapman’s Peak en route to Hout Bay.  When requested to do so, he could not point to a single transaction on the bank statement that was for toll gate fees. The apparent untruthfulness and inconsistency of the deceased’s answers at times gave this Court the distinct impression that the accused was making up his version as he was going along.   He came across as an untruthful witness not only in relation to this but also other aspects of his evidence.   In my view, the only reasonable inference to draw is that these lies were told in order not to associate him with any motive for the deceased’s murder, and thereby cover-up his involvement in it. [185] In any event, the accused had admitted to WO Scheepers in the warning statement that he knew that the use of the deceased’s bank card was a criminal offence. [186] We then move on to the aspect of why the accused did not report the deceased to SAPS as missing, for some twenty two days.  His answer, both in his evidence in chief and under cross-examination, was that he was too busy running the Hout Bay market to report his own father figure as a missing person to the police – for twenty two days. The difficulty with this answer is that on the accused’s own version, the Hout Bay market operated only on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.  He therefore could have reported the deceased missing from Monday 12 to Thursday15 September; from Monday 19 to Thursday 22 September, and from Monday 26 September onwards. [187] When Dominique, whom he regarded as his mother and referred to her as “ Mom” in their communications together, asked him to report the deceased missing on 12 September, the accused deflected instead.  He informed her that all was well at the house; and further that he had received a message from the deceased to the effect that he was alright, was in Johannesburg and no-one should be told about this.  He did not tell WO Scheepers about this message in the warning statement. This fact, coupled with the fact that the cell number that the message was sent from contained no evidence and activity whatsoever except the message referred to, and appeared to have been active only for 3 to 4 days before it went dead, lends credence to the State’s submission that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from these facts is that the message was a fabrication by the accused, designed to create the impression in the mind of Dominque that there was nothing to worry about as the deceased was then still alive and well. [188] The accused did tell Detective Cloete about the above message.  In my view, the only reasonable inference to draw from the fact that he told Detective Cloete about this message, and not WO Scheepers, is that the accused wanted to create in the mind of Detective Cloete, the impression that the deceased had not in fact disappeared, and there was therefore no missing person for the accused to report. [189] When Dominique asked the accused again on 20 September to report the deceased as missing, his response to her was that he would do so the next day. He did not do so because, he stated in evidence, he was too busy with the Hout Bay market.  Once again the difficulty with this was that the Hout Bay market would not occur again until Friday 23 September.  In response to Dominque’s request he could have reported on 20 September, 21 September (as he said he would) or 22 September if running the Hout Bay market prevented him from doing so. [190] The activities gleaned from the deceased’s bank statement during these dates give one some perspective as to what, in fact, the accused was busy doing on those dates. On 20 September, amounts of R500 were tapped on a Yoco machine from the deceased’s bank account in favour of LOVEx 20 times, withdrawing an amount of R10 000from the deceased’s funds. On 21 September, LOVEx was paid amounts of R500 17 times (amounting to R8 500.00), and on 22 September, LOVEx was paid R500 21 times with the deceased’s bank card via a Yoco machine, withdrawing R10 500 on that one day. It is evident therefore that on those three days when the accused was not involved in the Hout Bay market and could have reported the deceased missing but did not do so, that he was busy alright. He was busy withdrawing R29 000 from the deceased’s bank account in the space of three days. [191] As we know, and he admitted this under cross-examination, he lied to Mrs Haeggman that he had reported the deceased missing on 22 September. In his evidence he stated that he had meant to report, but that he was too busy and Mrs Haeggman beat him to it.   He could not however, explain why he had lied to Mrs Haeggman and told her that he had already reported. [192] When it was pointed out to the deceased that as busy as he was, this did not prevent him from going to pubs and using the deceased’s funds during those days, his answer was that it would have been too late for him to go a police station to report after he came out of the pubs.  However, when it was pointed out to him that police stations remain open day and night, effectively 24 hours a day, the accused could not take the matter further. [193]  The accused then changed tack again.  This time he said he could not report the deceased as missing because his motorbike, which the deceased had bought for him, had broken down. When asked by the Court why he did not use e-hailing services to go and report during this period when his bike was broken, his response was that this did not cross his mind at the time. [194] There is the question of the threatening WhatsApp message that the accused told WO Scheepers about. It will be recalled that this is the message that the accused allegedly received on 8 September after he returned from the deceased’s house, which said: “ For what you have seen, if you say it out, then I am coming after you and your wife.” The accused told WO Scheepers that he could not go to the police for fear that he was going to be hunted, or his wife was going to be hunted.  Not only did the accused not tell Detective Cloete and Dominique about this message; the more worrying factor is how he dealt with this message in his evidence before this Court. [195] He did not testify at all about this so-called threatening message in his evidence in chief, even though this had been testified about by, and his version was put to, the State’s witnesses.  In cross-examination, he first testified that the message did not come to his mind when he was giving evidence in chief, because he was responding to questions from his counsel and she did not ask him about it.  Then he confirmed that yes, he did receive the threatening message and though he was scared at first, after some time he was no longer scared because he was alone at his house (presumably meaning that his wife, who was included in the threat, was not there).  Thereafter, the accused denied that the threatening message was the reason that he did not report the deceased missing to the police. Then again, the accused testified that he did not recall telling WO Scheepers that the threatening message was the reason that he did not report the deceased missing to the police. And finally, about this same message, the accused testified that he did not tell WO Scheepers that the threatening message was the reason that he did not report the deceased missing. [196] In my view, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from all these inconsistencies and different versions is that, if the accused received the threatening message at all, it was not the cause for why the accused did not report the deceased missing to the police.   Assuming in the accused’s favour that the threatening message was sent to him, it clearly, on his own version, did not achieve its desired effect.  He was not afraid, and so it did not prevent him from reporting the deceased missing to the police. [197] Then finally, there are the 258 payments from the deceased’s bank account to the merchant LOVEx via a Yoco machine. A total of some R139 921, 70 was paid to LOVEx. No payments to LOVEx had ever been made from the deceased’s bank account before 8 September, and they continued until 30 September 2022 when the accused was arrested. [198] Whilst at the same time admitting that from 8 until 30 September it was he and he alone who had possession and use of the deceased’s bank card, the accused nevertheless denies any knowledge of the payments to LOVEx.  He denies ever making them.  He admits that he knows Bel.  When confronted with the WhatsApp conversations between him and Bel, in particular on 13 September where Bel sent him the link to the LOVExLight Yoco machine, the accused said he could not remember this. He flatly, and baldly without any further explanation, denied any association with or knowledge of LOVEx or what it was, or ever having tapped the deceased’s card to pay LOVEx, which he said he knew nothing about and does not know what it is. [199] These are the proved facts in relation to LOVEx and the Yoco machine. [200] When the accused was arrested, he had in his possession the FNB bank card belonging to his friend Bel, as well a Yoco machine owned by Bel and linked to the trading name LOVExLIGHT.  The bank account linked to this Yoco machine is an FNB account belonging to Bel, and the bank card linked to Bel’s FNB account is the same FNB bank card that was in the accused’s possession when he was arrested.  Furthermore, the bank statement obtained of Bel’s FNB account show payments from a Yoco machine from about 12 September until the end of that month.   The evidence is that there were no such transactions using the Yoco machine before 7 September 2022. [201] The accused’s bare denials, the admitted facts as well as the proved facts lead this Court to the only reasonable inference being that the accused, who had the Yoco machine in his possession, used it to facilitate the syphoning of funds from the deceased’s bank account into Bel’s bank account, the funds in which the accused also had control of and access to, by virtue of the fact that when he was arrested in possession of the Bel’s bank card that was linked to his bank account, which was in turn linked to the Yoco machine. Conclusion [202] The question in this trial was whether the accused is responsible for killing the deceased, robbing him of his property and trying to cover his crimes.  In my view the evidence, taken as a whole, is inconsistent with the accused’s innocence and the State has proved this, and the accused’s guilt, beyond reasonable doubt. [203] The evidence establishes that the accused planned and carefully calculated the commission of his crimes, in that already on 6 September 2022 whilst the deceased was still alive, the accused reached out to his friend Bel requesting his Yoco machine which he said he needed by the coming weekend, by which time the evidence shows that the accused was in control of the deceased’s bank account. And the deceased was dead. [204] The Yoco machine is the tool which facilitated the accused’s theft of the majority of the funds stolen from the deceased’s bank account during that month of September 2022.  His actions, and the killing in particular, were evidently planned, premeditated and carefully calculated to enable him the longest time possible to achieve his motive, namely, depleting the deceased’s bank account of the funds in it. [205] The accused failed to report the deceased as missing and strung Dominique along, as it were, again in order to give himself the longest time possible to syphon the funds from the deceased’s account.  He did this freely and wantonly, safe in the knowledge that the deceased could not do anything about it.  He continued running the deceased’s business and in that way too, he was acquiring monies paid into the deceased’s bank account therefrom which rightfully belonged to the deceased, and then syphoning those funds out using the Yoco machine.  He did this brazenly, emboldened by his knowledge that he knew where the deceased was, and there would be no come backs from him. [206] Along the way, the accused covered up his crimes first by removing blood at the scene, and then through a series of lies including fabricating WhatsApp messages to create the impression that the deceased was still alive. The accused’s ultimate act of concealment of his crime was the burying of the deceased’s body in a shallow grave in his own back yard. [207] Although there is no direct evidence to this effect, the entirety of the evidence taken as a whole; the entire chain of events from 6 September 2022 until the discovery of the deceased’s body, points to this being the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the proved facts. The accused had exclusive access to the deceased’s property from 8 September until about 20 September when Mrs Haeggman started going to the house. During that period, the accused had plenty of opportunity to bury the deceased’s body in the backyard. It can be inferred, based on the results of the post-mortem, that the accused’s body had been buried for a period of between two to three weeks, which corelates with the period when the accused had the opportunity that arose from his exclusive access to the property. [208] The conclusion that the accused killed the deceased by repeatedly stabbing him with a  sharp object and possibly strangling him, whilst motivated by his desire and intention to steal the deceased’s money from him, and that he covered up his tracks until he could no longer do so, is consistent with all the proved facts, which exclude every reasonable inference from them except that it was the accused who committed these crimes. This is the cumulative effect of all the items of circumstantial evidence that have been placed before this Court. [209] In the circumstances, the accused is found guilty of the following charges, summarised and fully set out in the indictment (and earlier defined in this judgment). [209.1]        Count 1 – murder, read with the provisions of section 51(1) of Act 105 of 1997. [209.2]        Count 2 – robbery with aggravating circumstances. [209.3]        Count 3 – defeating or obstructing the course of justice, read with the provisions of section 256 of Act 51 of 1977. [209.4]        Count 4 - defeating or obstructing the course of justice, read with the provisions of section 256 of Act 51 of 1977. [209.5]        Count 5 - defeating or obstructing the course of justice, read with the provisions of section 256 of Act 51 of 1977. [209.6]        Count 6 – theft. [209.7]        Count 7 – contravening section 49(1) read with sections 1 , 9 (4), 32 and 34 of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002 . N MAYOSI ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Appearances For the State:       Advocate Maki National Prosecuting Authority For Accused:        Pauline Andrews Legal Aid South Africa [1] 1944 AD 493 , at 508-9 [2] 1939 AD 188 , at 202-3 [3] R v Sesetse 1981 (3) SA 353 (A), at 360-70 [4] 1996 (2) SACR 1 (A), at 8C-D [5] Service 68, 2022, 22-30A to 22-34 [6] See 22-30B for the ten problematic questions enumerated by the authors. [7] 1985 (1) SA 590 (A) sino noindex make_database footer start