Mathekola v State

On the night of 17 September 2005, a group of armed men carried out a house robbery at the Swanepoel family home in Pretoria. Four family members were forced into the lounge and guarded by James Sello Mathekola while his accomplices searched the house for valuables. One complainant alerted the police, who arrived while the robbery was ongoing. One robber, Peter Maphakela, was arrested at the scene; Mathekola escaped but was arrested later. Both were convicted of four counts of robbery with aggravating circumstances, four counts of kidnapping, and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition. They received effective sentences of 20 years’ imprisonment. Applications for leave to appeal were initially refused at all levels, but Maphakela later succeeded on petition and his appeal against the kidnapping convictions was upheld on the basis that they duplicated the robbery convictions. Mathekola then applied for reconsideration of the refusal of his own petition for leave to appeal.

The application for reconsideration succeeded. The order dismissing the applicant’s petition for leave to appeal was varied, and the applicant was granted leave to appeal to the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria against conviction and sentence in respect of counts 2, 4, 6 and 8 (the kidnapping counts).

The case clarifies the operation of section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act and illustrates when exceptional circumstances justify reconsideration of a refused petition for leave to appeal. It underscores the importance of consistency and fairness where co-accused are involved and highlights the court’s willingness to intervene to prevent injustice arising from divergent procedural outcomes.