In September 2015, the appellant, Lesiba Simon Kekana, murdered his four minor children in Moletlane, Limpopo, by slitting their throats with a knife. The killings followed a series of marital disputes with his wife, who lived and worked in Pretoria, including revelations of her extramarital affair and a heated telephone argument shortly before the murders. After killing the children one by one, the appellant attempted unsuccessfully to commit suicide. He was also charged with assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm arising from a prior axe attack on his wife in June 2015. The State alleged that the murders were premeditated and charged the appellant with murder read with s 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997. The appellant pleaded guilty to all counts and submitted a written plea explanation under s 112(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, making a bare reference that he pleaded guilty to the murder counts in terms of s 51(2) of the CLAA. The trial court convicted him and imposed sentences of 20 years’ imprisonment on each murder count, believing it was precluded from imposing life imprisonment because of the plea. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal considered whether the trial court had misdirected itself and whether a more severe sentence could be imposed under s 322(6) of the CPA.
The appeal against sentence was dismissed. The order of the court a quo was set aside and substituted with sentences of life imprisonment on each of the four murder counts. The sentence on the assault count remained unchanged, and all sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the life sentence on count 1. The substituted sentences were ante-dated to 29 April 2016.
This case is significant for clarifying that an accused cannot bind a sentencing court to the lesser minimum sentence regime in s 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act by a mere, unexplained reference in a guilty plea. It affirms the sentencing court’s inherent discretion and power to impose life imprisonment where the facts justify it, regardless of the State’s acceptance of a plea. The judgment also confirms the breadth of the Supreme Court of Appeal’s power under s 322(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act to increase sentences on appeal where there has been a material misdirection. It provides important guidance on premeditation, confirming that even a short period of reflection may suffice.