Notshokovu v S (157/15) [2016] ZASCA 112 (7 September 2016)

Notshokovu v S (157/15) [2016] ZASCA 112 (7 September 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any special circumstances warranting reconsideration of the refusal of special leave to appeal. The trial court's factual findings regarding the credibility of the complainant and the improbability of the appellant's version were supported by the evidence. The medical report's admission was immaterial, as the appellant admitted intercourse and the dispute centered on consent, which the complainant credibly denied. The statutory requirement for assessors did not apply to rape cases, and the trial court applied the correct test in evaluating the evidence holistically. There was no indication of grave injustice or...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 112
Parties
Appellant: Thobani Notshokovu; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 September 2016
Case Number
157/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal; Reconsideration Under S 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act
Outcome
Application for special leave to appeal refused.
Judges
Shongwe, Seriti, Petse, Mathopo, Potterill
Legal Topics
Rape, Leave to Appeal, Credibility of Witnesses, Consent, Special Circumstances, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Rape Leave to Appeal Credibility of Witnesses Consent Special Circumstances Admissibility of Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thobani Notshokovu

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal; Reconsideration Under S 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant demonstrated special circumstances warranting reconsideration of the refusal of special leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the trial court erred in its assessment of the complainant's credibility and the appellant's version.
  3. 3 Whether the medical report was properly admitted and its impact on the case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to demonstrate any special circumstances warranting reconsideration of the refusal of special leave to appeal. The trial court's factual findings regarding the credibility of the complainant and the improbability of the appellant's version were supported by the evidence. The medical report's admission was immaterial, as the appellant admitted intercourse and the dispute centered on consent, which the complainant credibly denied. The statutory requirement for assessors did not apply to rape cases, and the trial court applied the correct test in evaluating the evidence holistically. There was no indication of grave injustice or...

Court Disposition

Application for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • The application for special leave to appeal is refused.
  • There is no variation to the previous order dismissing the application for special leave to appeal.