Lekeka v S (A139/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 92; [2020] 3 All SA 485 (FB); 2021 (1) SACR 106 (FB) (13 May 2020)

Lekeka v S (A139/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 92; [2020] 3 All SA 485 (FB); 2021 (1) SACR 106 (FB) (13 May 2020)

The appeal succeeded in part. The court found that the appellant was wrongly convicted on a 'combined' count and should have been convicted on two separate counts: housebreaking with intent to rape and attempted rape. The evidence of the complainant and other child witnesses was credible and corroborated by physical and medical evidence. The appellant's version was rejected as improbable. The court held that the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment does not apply to attempted rape under section 55 of Act 32 of 2007, as the Minimum Sentencing Act does not expressly provide for minimum sentences for attempts. The court found that the appellant's previous convictions, lack of...

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 92
Parties
Appellant: Molefi Edward Lekeka; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 May 2020
Case Number
A139/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against sentence upheld; conviction amended; sentence of life imprisonment set aside and substituted with 10 years imprisonment for both counts taken together.
Judges
Van Zyl, Chesiwe
Legal Topics
Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment Act, Attempted Rape, Housebreaking With Intent to Rape, Sentencing Principles, Minimum Sentences, Child Victims
Criminal Law Sexual Offences and Related Matters Amendment Act Attempted Rape Housebreaking With Intent to Rape Sentencing Principles Minimum Sentences Child Victims

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molefi Edward Lekeka

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's version should have been accepted as reasonably possibly true.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction on a 'combined' count was correct in law.
  3. 3 Whether the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment applies to attempted rape under section 55 of Act 32 of 2007.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded in part. The court found that the appellant was wrongly convicted on a 'combined' count and should have been convicted on two separate counts: housebreaking with intent to rape and attempted rape. The evidence of the complainant and other child witnesses was credible and corroborated by physical and medical evidence. The appellant's version was rejected as improbable. The court held that the prescribed minimum sentence of life imprisonment does not apply to attempted rape under section 55 of Act 32 of 2007, as the Minimum Sentencing Act does not expressly provide for minimum sentences for attempts. The court found that the appellant's previous convictions, lack of...

Court Disposition

Appeal against sentence upheld; conviction amended; sentence of life imprisonment set aside and substituted with 10 years imprisonment for both counts taken together.

Orders

  • The conviction is amended: Count 1, guilty of housebreaking with intent to contravene section 3 of Act 32 of 2007 (rape); Count 2, guilty of attempted contravention of section 3, read with section 55, of Act 32 of 2007 (attempted rape).
  • The appeal against sentence is upheld; the sentence of life imprisonment is set aside and substituted with 10 years imprisonment for both counts taken together.