They were found guilty of various crimes, including a brutal attack on elderly victims at a farm.
Five people convicted of murder, robbery and sexual assault have been denied permission to appeal their convictions and sentences.
Judge Lawrence Lever of the Northern Cape High Court in Kimberley dismissed all applications on Friday, 29 August 2025.
The five accused were part of a seven-person group convicted in March this year.
They were found guilty of various crimes, including a brutal attack on elderly victims at a farm.
The convictions and sentences
Motlalentwa Qhautse received the harshest punishment.
He was convicted of murder, sexual assault, housebreaking, and robbery.
The court sentenced him to life imprisonment for murder, with additional sentences running at the same time.
Four others were convicted of housebreaking and robbery.
Lizbeth Ndlala, Themba Lawrence Maja and Samson Sam Mbokane each got 10 years in prison. Jabulani Wilson Zuma was sentenced to 20 years.
All five applied to appeal their convictions and sentences. One accused applied only to appeal his sentence.
ALSO READ: Mozambican national sentenced to life for murder of Amantle Samane
Why the appeals failed
The court applied the test established in section 17 of the Superior Courts Act.
Lever noted this creates a more stringent requirement than previously existed.
He said courts must be convinced another court would likely reach a different conclusion. However, regarding the accused’s cases, Lever doubted that this would be the case.
“There is no rational basis to conclude that another court could reasonably come to a different conclusion,” Lever ruled for each accused.
The first accused, Qhautse, challenged police evidence against him.
He claimed Warrant Officer Patrick Dibebe was unreliable as a single witness.
But Lever noted Qhautse did not testify or call witnesses. Much of the police officer’s evidence was not disputed during cross-examination.
“The state cannot fairly be expected to lead corroborating evidence on evidence that was not disputed or challenged. Nor can the court be expected to ignore the fact that these elements of the evidence placed before it were unchallenged,” said Lever.
Qhautse also owned sneakers that matched a footprint found at the farmyard crime scene.
“This evidence clearly called for an explanation from accused 2. No such explanation was placed before the court,” Lever stated.
The Mpumalanga group’s story rejected
Two accused, Ndlala and Mbokane, claimed they only came to Kimberley to perform rituals and dig for coins.
They said they knew nothing about the robbery.
But the court found they all shared the stolen money.
“Both accused 3 and 6 received a substantial amount in cash, which in the circumstances could only be derived from the robbery,” Lever stated.
He added that Ndlala had victims’ belongings found at her home when she was arrested.
Furthermore, Lever said their ritual story made no sense.
According to their own evidence, no rituals or coin digging happened.
Yet they were paid from robbery proceeds. Neither could explain this.
The court also found they stayed involved even after learning about the violent attack.
“One would have expected clear indications of disassociation from innocent co-travellers after being informed of the robbery and the nature of the assaults, if they were not part of the criminal enterprise,” Lever said.
ALSO READ: Chinesi Obasi fails to overturn fake marriage and human trafficking sentence
Cell phone evidence challenge fails
Zuma argued his cell phone records were obtained illegally.
The phone data placed him at the crime scene during the robbery.
His lawyer claimed the phone number was obtained improperly because the crime happened in January 2018, but Zuma only listed the number in a fraud complaint months later.
Lever called this argument “simply a non-sequitur”.
The judge said the important date was Zuma’s arrest in March 2021, not when he filed an unrelated complaint. Lever noted that the complaint was made long before his arrest.
The court also noted Zuma never challenged how police got his phone number when the officer testified.
“If there was something untoward in the manner that such evidence was obtained, its admissibility ought to have been challenged at that time. This was not done,” the judge said.
Lever said his decision to sentence Zuma was not only based on the phone’s evidence.
“I found that accused 7 was an unreliable and untruthful witness,” he said.
ALSO READ: Thabo Bester and Dr Nandipha fight Netflix’s ‘Beauty and the Bester’ release in urgent court bid
Sentences were appropriate
Lever said the sentences fit the crimes. Qhautse was involved in “a vicious and brutal attack on two elderly and vulnerable victims”.
Murder carries a mandatory life sentence and he failed to show reasons to reduce it.
The other three accused actually received mercy. The law required 15 years minimum, but Lever gave them 10 years each.
“I found ‘substantial and compelling’ reasons to impose the lesser sentence,” he said.
He said Zuma’s 20-year sentence reflected his criminal history.
Zuma had three previous convictions and was on probation when he committed these crimes. The law normally requires 25 years for repeat offenders.
Lever reduced it due to Zuma’s age and four years already spent in custody awaiting trial.
All appeals denied
The court found no basis for any appeals to succeed.
Lever concluded there were no compelling reasons why any of the cases should go to a higher court.
All five applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.
The accused must now serve their sentences as imposed by the trial court.
NOW READ: Court grants Cape Town permission to evict foreigners ‘demanding’ relocation to Canada
