Murderess Najwa Petersen will know on Wednesday whether she will be allowed to appeal her conviction.

Clad in prison-issue blue denims, and without makeup or her trademark glasses and headscarf, she was in the Cape High Court on Tuesday to hear her attorney argue for leave to appeal.

One of her co-accused, Abdoer Emjedi, is also seeking leave to take his case to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

After hearing a morning of argument from their legal representatives, Judge Siraj Desai said he would deliver his ruling at 10am on Wednesday.

Najwa, Emjedi and Waheed Hassen were found guilty in December of the 2006 execution-style slaying of her husband, theatre legend Taliep Petersen.

Emjedi, Desai found at the time, had been a middleman in arranging for Hassen to carry out the hit at Najwa's request.

On Tuesday her attorney Reaz Khan told Desai he had misdirected himself in convicting her, and had made a number of incorrect findings of fact.

Among other things, he disputed the court's finding that it was probably Najwa who left an electronically-controlled security gate and the front door open for the hitmen to enter the Petersens' Cape Town home.

Desai said anything was possible, but the coincidence that the gate and door were left open on the night was explainable only on the version accepted by the court.

It was a "rational explanation sustained by acceptable evidence", he said.

Khan also questioned the police's taking a series of statements from Najwa without warning her of her rights when they believed she was a suspect.

A 'ton' of evidence

However Desai said even if the statements, which were in any case exculpatory ? not admitting guilt ? were not admitted, there was still a "ton" of evidence against Najwa.

"Mr Khan, I can assure you that I gave every bit of evidence in this matter anxious consideration," he said.

Advocate David Stephens, appearing for Emjedi, said a key state witness, Fahiem Hendricks, had been a poor witness, "more than flawed".

Hendricks, who was warned as an accomplice, had at times not even been rational, Stephens said.

His testimony was not good enough to show that Emjedi had planned a murder, and there was a reasonable possibility that another court might hold a different view to Desai's.

Desai said that though the court had treated Hendricks' testimony with caution, the entire mosaic of evidence militated overwhelmingly against Emjedi and the other accused

At the start of Tuesday's proceedings, Desai reacted sharply when he saw that Najwa and Emjedi were in court, demanding to know why they were present.

He said it had never been the practice in the high court for jailed appellants to be brought to court, at huge expense to the State, for such a hearing.

Khan said he had arranged with Correctional Services for Najwa to be present, in line with practice in regional and magistrates courts.

"Please note the practice in this court," said Desai frostily.

Najwa was sentenced in February to an effective 28 years jail, Emjedi to 24.