A 50-year-old man sentenced to two life terms for a fatal road rage shooting in Upington has been denied leave to appeal by the Kimberley High Court.
John Ivan Francious Mouton was sentenced in April 2026 after being convicted of murdering Boiphelo Khumalo and Shadrack Dube during the incident on December 17, 2022.
The court heard that Mouton was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Joshua Rock. After the crash, he retrieved a firearm from his vehicle and threatened Rock. During the confrontation, Rock’s friend, Dube, arrived and attempted to defuse the situation.
Despite his intervention, Mouton fired two shots. Rock left the scene, while Dube remained behind.
Shortly afterwards, Khumalo, the owner of the vehicle Rock had been driving, arrived after being informed of the collision. He was accompanied by several people, including off-duty police officer Ranchia Nokayi.
Nokayi attempted to calm Mouton and called the police for assistance. While she was still on the phone, Mouton began firing indiscriminately.
Dube and Khumalo were fatally wounded, while Mouton also fired at four other people, including Nokayi. None of them was injured.
When sentencing Mouton, Judge Mpho Mamosebo noted that he deliberately aimed at the upper bodies of both deceased.
“What is perturbing about this conduct is that the accused aimed at the deceased’s upper body, his head and chest, and literally blew the deceased’s head off, as recorded in the post-mortem report,” she said of Dube’s killing.
Khumalo died after being shot once in the chest.
In his application for leave to appeal, Mouton argued that the trial court erred in finding that the State had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
He further contended that the court wrongly accepted the evidence of the State witnesses, incorrectly found that the murders were premeditated, and imposed sentences that were “shockingly harsh and inappropriate”.
Mouton was sentenced to life imprisonment for each murder and 10 years’ imprisonment on each of the four attempted murder counts, with portions of the sentences ordered to run concurrently.
Dismissing the application, Judge Mamosebo relied on the principles set out in S v Malgas and S v Matyityi, finding that there were no substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a departure from the prescribed minimum sentence.
“The specified sentences are not to be departed from lightly and for flimsy reasons,” she quoted.
The judge reiterated that although the collision had been unexpected and had angered Mouton, property damage could never justify taking a life.
“A vehicle is repairable and replaceable. Life is not. No amount of anger can justify taking a life or attempting to take a life.”
She further stressed that society’s interests required courts to impose appropriate sentences to maintain public confidence in the justice system and deter people from taking the law into their own hands.
Refusing leave to appeal, Mamosebo concluded: “There are, in my view, no cognisable prospects of success, nor any other compelling reasons for the Full Court of this Division to entertain the envisaged appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal must fail.”
