Court orders release of woman who stole Nivea roll-ons worth R75, hours after her third conviction

Nomvula Buthelezi was first convicted in 2016, received a warning and was released.

A 27-year-old woman is released from prison after the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) High Court in Pietermaritzburg quashed her three-year conviction for theft.

Nomvula Buthelezi was convicted by the Dundee Magistrates Court for stealing two Nivea roll-ons worth R75.

Buthelezi appeared in court on July 29, 2024, having already been convicted three times of theft.

ALSO READ: Woman sentenced to 12 years in prison after stealing R16 million from company

Her first conviction was in 2016, she received a warning but was released.

In 2018, she was sentenced to a fine of R300 and 30 days in prison.

Most recently, on 18 July this year, she was sentenced to a fine of R500 and 30 days in prison. The sentence was suspended for five years on condition that she does not commit any further theft.

However, on the same day of her third conviction, the 27-year-old stole the Nivea roll-ons and was arrested again.

Buthelezi's fourth conviction for theft

On 30 July, Buthelezi appeared in court, pleaded guilty and represented himself.

The defendant demanded a “minor punishment” and stated that her main concern was her eleven-year-old child.

Buthelezi claimed she was parentless, unemployed and reliant on a grant and an additional R350. However, she did not disclose the source or amount of the grant.

She mentioned that her child had probably been staying with neighbors since her arrest on July 18.

The 27-year-old mother also stated that her father left her when the child was still a toddler.

However, the state demanded a harsh sentence due to Buthelezi's aggravated theft convictions.

READ MORE: Pastor sentenced to 10 years in prison for stealing batteries from power poles

They claimed that the defendant was only thinking about her child while avoiding legal consequences and stressed that the shop owners expected the courts to ensure justice for the theft.

The Dundee Magistrates Court questioned why Buthelezi stole the items despite receiving a grant and an additional R350.

The judge said that if she lacked the necessary means, she should have waited until she could pay.

The judge agreed with the State and concluded that Buthelezi showed no remorse and had not learned from her previous convictions.

The chairman then imposed a three-year prison sentence.

Three-year prison sentence for theft “disproportionate”

In a court judgment delivered on Friday, September 6, Acting Judge Mahendra Chetty said the sentence imposed by the judge was “disproportionate.”

He found that the presiding officer had given “undue weight” to Buthelezi’s previous convictions for similar offences.

Chetty stressed, referring to an earlier ruling, that when determining the sentence for the accused, the judge must take into account, among other things, the conviction for the current offence.

“A thief who steals a loaf of bread should not have to go to prison for ten years just because he has stolen countless loaves of bread individually in the past.

READ MORE: Longwe Twala theft case adjourned, brother off the hook

“His sentence should never increase over time, from a few weeks for the first offence, to a few months, then to years, and finally to many years; the offence remains a minor offence no matter how often it is repeated,” the judgments state.

“In my opinion, the judge acted wrongly when he imposed a prison sentence of three years.

“Moreover, this is not a case where society needs to be protected from the accused by removing her entirely.

“The sentence imposed by the court is unduly harsh and inappropriate under the circumstances. The sentence is set aside and replaced by an alternative sentence,” the judge said.

Child welfare not taken into account

Chetty also believed that the judge had not taken the “best interests of the child” into account when sentencing Buthelezi to prison.

“Since the child’s welfare is at stake, the judge instructed the prosecutor to instruct the investigating officer to contact the social services department and locate the child’s whereabouts.

“Other than that, the judge did not consider any other factors related to the child. The defendant is the child's primary caregiver.

“Now that she is in custody, she herself is not sure where the child is. Clearly the court did not consider the child's welfare when sentencing the defendants.”