Hitmen’s lawyer sentenced for delaying trial

An attorney has been sentenced to 12 months in prison or a R10,000 fine, half suspended, for delaying a major murder trial by more than a year. Illustration: Lisa Nelson.

• Attorney Sithembiso Nkatha was due to represent an accused in a mass murder case but failed to appear when the trial was due to start in July 2025. He was sitting as a magistrate in Pinetown at the time.
• Judge Jacqueline Henriques rejected his explanations, finding he had deliberately avoided court and failed to formally withdraw from the case.
• Nkatha was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment or a fine of R10,000 – half suspended.
• The trial, involving the 2021 murders of three members of the Thandroyen family, can now only be accommodated in October 2026.

A Durban-based attorney has been held to account for delaying by more than a year the start of a high-profile murder trial involving crimes which occurred five years ago.

One of his excuses for failing to attend court at the start of the trial was that he was sitting as an acting magistrate in another court.

In the Durban High Court in January, Judge Jacqueline Henriques, who conducted the enquiry into the conduct of Sithembiso Nkatha, found him in contempt for failing to attend court in July 2025.

Nkatha had confirmed the suitability of the court dates at a pre-trial conference in November 2024, when the case was confirmed as being ready for trial. Furthermore, he had not formally withdrawn from the matter, meaning another attorney could not be appointed.

On 19 August 2026, Judge Henriques sentenced him to 12 months imprisonment (half suspended), alternatively to pay a fine of R10,000 (half suspended). She also directed that his conduct be reported to the Legal Practice Council and the Magistrates’ Commission and that they take further action should they deem it appropriate.

Nkatha was initially representing alleged “hitmen” Sbonelo Shangase and Thalente Mkhize, charged with 30 counts, 15 of murder, including the 2021 murders of Brendan Thandroyen, his daughter Bianca Afrika, and his brother Craig Thandroyen. They were gunned down at their business premises in the Point area.

Judge Henriques said the trial was to be heard in two back-to-back sessions and special arrangements had been made to accommodate the matter, given the number of witnesses to be called. At that stage, Nkatha was only representing Shangase.

However, on the first day of trial, 21 July 2025, Nkatha failed to appear.

The trial was adjourned to 24 July, with the judge directing that Nkatha appear on that date, and this was communicated to his office. But again, he failed to appear.

The investigating officer said he had seen Nkatha outside the court, but he had “refused to come in”, saying he had withdrawn from the matter and had informed state advocate Krishen Shah.

Shah, however, said he had not received any such notification.

The trial court ordered an enquiry into his conduct based on written complaints by the prosecutor, the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, and Legal Aid, who indicated that much time and effort had been spent on getting the matter ready for trial, that the offences had been committed in 2021 and 2022, and that witnesses had been killed and others were afraid to testify.

Nkatha made several excuses. He claimed that he had hospital appointments, that he had received death threats, that he had been robbed and assaulted at gunpoint and his cellphone had been stolen.

It emerged during the evidence that he was sitting as a magistrate in Pinetown at the time.

Judge Henriques said that during the conduct enquiry, Nkatha failed to comply with orders handed down and kept filing affidavits without leave, “clearly creating the impression that he was embellishing his explanation as the enquiry proceeded”.

Regarding his hospital appointments, she said his card “interestingly” showed no appointments for July 2025. The “only inference to be drawn was that he deliberately did not attend at court on 24 July 2025”.

She also noted that he had not laid any criminal charges relating to the robbery and that a document he submitted, purporting to show that he had gone to Telkom to replace his phone, related to someone with a different name.

He finally formally withdrew from the case in August 2025, citing a “conflict of interest”.

Henriques said Nkatha was a seasoned attorney who had also acted as a magistrate, and knew he was required to withdraw formally in court.

“As a result of his conduct the trial did not proceed, huge expenses were incurred by the state in securing the attendance of witnesses and it impacted on the administration of justice,” the judge said.

The trial could only be accommodated in October 2026.

The judge said her ruling on sanction had been delayed several times because Nkatha did not attend court and, when he did, he applied to admit further evidence and said he wished to apply for Legal Aid.

Ultimately, he continued to represent himself. He said he was experiencing financial hardship. He said his non-attendance at court on 24 July 2025 was because he was “actioning other things”. He was of the view that he was not in contempt of court.

Henriques said it was clear that he still maintained his innocence and did not accept the court’s findings.

“This demonstrates to this court that throughout Mr Nkatha does not accept any responsibility nor accept that he did anything wrong. This is indicative that he shows no remorse for his conduct and his behaviour to date,” the judge said.

She said the most appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment with the option of a fine.

Support independent journalism
Donate using Payfast