Molokomme v S (A754/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 129 (29 July 2011)

Molokomme v S (A754/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 129 (29 July 2011)

The appeal was upheld because the evidence presented by the complainant was inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and was contradicted by other witnesses and the medical evidence. The complainant's credibility was undermined by contradictions between the charge sheet and her testimony, the absence of admissible first complaint evidence, and her admission to the community that the appellant had done nothing to her. The medical evidence did not conclusively support the allegation of rape, and the supporting witnesses' accounts were unsatisfactory and contradictory. The court found that the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true and that the prosecution failed to prove its case...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 129
Parties
Appellant: Jackson Sondi Molokomme; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2011
Case Number
A754/2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentence set aside.
Judges
B.R. Southwood, G. Webster, P.C. van der Byl
Legal Topics
Rape, Indecent Assault, Onus of Proof, Credibility of Single Witness, Delay in Appeal Hearing
Criminal Law Rape Indecent Assault Onus of Proof Credibility of Single Witness Delay in Appeal Hearing

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson Sondi Molokomme

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conviction for rape and indecent assault was supported by credible evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the complainant's evidence was sufficiently trustworthy to sustain a conviction.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in hearing the appeal prejudiced the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the evidence presented by the complainant was inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and was contradicted by other witnesses and the medical evidence. The complainant's credibility was undermined by contradictions between the charge sheet and her testimony, the absence of admissible first complaint evidence, and her admission to the community that the appellant had done nothing to her. The medical evidence did not conclusively support the allegation of rape, and the supporting witnesses' accounts were unsatisfactory and contradictory. The court found that the appellant's version was reasonably possibly true and that the prosecution failed to prove its case...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentence set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld and the convictions and sentence are set aside.
  • The Director of Public Prosecutions is requested to investigate the delay in the hearing of this appeal in light of the judgment's comments.