Khoza & another v The State

The appellants were charged in the North West Division of the High Court, Mahikeng, with murder and robbery with aggravating circumstances arising from a planned armed robbery during which the victim was shot and killed by a co-accused. The indictment did not refer to the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (the Minimum Sentences Act). During the trial, the appellants believed the trial judge was biased and, after a failed recusal application, terminated their legal representatives’ mandates and ceased participating in the trial. They were convicted on both counts. Only after conviction were they informed that the murder conviction attracted a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment under the Minimum Sentences Act. The trial court found no substantial and compelling circumstances and sentenced them to life imprisonment for murder and 20 years’ imprisonment for robbery. Appeals against sentence to the full court were dismissed.

The appeal was upheld. The sentences imposed by the trial court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the trial court to impose sentence afresh without applying the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997.

The case affirms the principle that accused persons must be informed timeously of the applicability of the Minimum Sentences Act to ensure a fair trial, particularly in relation to sentencing. It reinforces procedural fairness requirements in criminal trials and underscores the prejudice that may arise where accused persons are not made aware of mandatory minimum sentencing exposure from the outset.