A three-year secret love affair between two married men ended in bloodshed at a Durban beachfront hotel, where one shot the other dead to keep their relationship from his wife. On Thursday, the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Durban convicted Petrus Hendrik van Rooyen of the premeditated murder of his lover, Jan Johannes Craemer, and of fraud linked to a deceptive hotel booking.
Acting Judge Priscilla Maharaj found overwhelming evidence that Van Rooyen had planned the killing, yet granted him extended bail of R50 000 pending sentencing in September. Van Rooyen’s wife, who was in court, immediately paid the bail after proceedings. He must surrender his passport and report to police twice weekly.
The killing took place on 30 November 2015 in room 1201 at the Durban Spa hotel on Oliver Tambo Parade. Van Rooyen, now 54, had travelled from Mpumalanga to Durban with his licensed firearm, telling Craemer he was coming to give him money he had asked for. Instead, he brought the weapon, checked in under a false name, booked the room for two nights but paid for only one day, and placed his loaded gun under a pillow despite a safe being available in the room.
Earlier that day, the pair met at a Spur restaurant. Van Rooyen then lured Craemer back to the hotel. When Craemer sought sex, Van Rooyen reached for the gun and fired two shots — one to the face and another to the neck — killing him.
Delivering her judgment, Acting Judge Maharaj laid out the chain of decisions that, in her view, showed premeditation. She said: “The accused made the reservation at the spa for two nights, he got there and gave a false name, he paid on that day for one day. This conduct is indicative of a preconceived plan.” She found further that: “Upon getting to the room, the accused again failed to secure the gun when the deceased sought sex. The accused immediately reached for the gun, and the accused conceded that he didn’t feel threatened at the time he reached for the gun.
“This conduct in arming himself points to a prior decision to use the gun.”
She added: “When all these factors are considered cumulatively, they establish that the accused did not act on the spur [of the] moment, he armed himself in advance, created an opportunity to isolate the accused.”
After the shooting, Van Rooyen fled, leaving a “do not disturb” sign on the door to delay discovery of the body. While driving back to Mpumalanga along the N3, he was later hospitalised following a car accident.
The court heard how the relationship began years earlier. Craemer, 37 at the time of his death, had worked at Van Rooyen’s panel beating business in Tzaneen when their romance started in 2012. Even after Craemer moved back to Durban, they kept meeting in secret while hiding the affair from their wives. By late 2015, they had reached a crossroads. They had spoken passionately about leaving their spouses and building a life together. But while Van Rooyen had initially considered leaving, he later reconciled with his wife and wanted the affair to remain buried. Craemer, however, was determined to expose their relationship and move forward together.
In court, Van Rooyen pleaded not guilty to both the murder and fraud charges. His defence advanced non-pathological criminal incapacity and sane automatism — an involuntary act caused by external factors other than mental illness — as his defence. The fraud count related to the deceptive hotel reservation, which caused R1 564.54 in damages to Durban Spa.
After convicting him, Judge Maharaj heard argument on bail. Defence advocate Louis Barnard read from Van Rooyen’s affidavit: “I will not leave my family behind in order to be a fugitive for the rest of my life. I would rather serve a sentence than become a fugitive for the rest of my life. I was under immense emotional stress at the time of the offence.”
Prosecutor advocate Vasi Chetty opposed the extension, arguing: “He has been convicted of a violent crime and releasing him would undermine the public’s confidence in the justice system”.
However, Judge Maharaj extended bail, noting his consistent attendance and cooperation. She ruled: “The accused has not presented as flight risk, he has attended court with consistency demonstrating a willingness to submit to authority.”
The verdict unravels a stark tale of forbidden love, fear and fatal resolve. The court accepted that Van Rooyen carefully created the conditions for the killing: the journey from Mpumalanga, the false name at check-in, the two-night reservation despite intending to stay only one, hiding a loaded firearm under a pillow, and the decision to meet at a restaurant before moving to the hotel room where he could control the setting.
The judge rejected any notion that he acted in sudden panic. The finding that he “didn’t feel threatened” when he reached for the gun, coupled with his actions to isolate Craemer in a private space, weighed heavily in confirming premeditation.
Sentencing proceedings are scheduled for 21 to 23 September, when the court will consider pre-sentencing reports, including probation, correctional and psychological assessments. Until then, Van Rooyen remains on extended bail under strict conditions, convicted of the murder of a man he once planned a future with — and of the fraud woven into the final steps of that deadly plan.
