Rathebe v S (1571/2024) [2025] ZASCA 73 (30 May 2025)

Rathebe v S (1571/2024) [2025] ZASCA 73 (30 May 2025)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the only evidence presented by the State against the appellant was the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, which did not meet the high threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt required for conviction. The appellant's version was exculpatory and supported by the evidence, and the trial court erred in its assessment by failing to consider alternative explanations for the complainant's injuries and by not giving the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The Court emphasized the constitutional rights to a fair trial and equal treatment, holding that the appellant was entitled to the same outcome as his co-accused, who had been acquitted on the...

Citation
[2025] ZASCA 73
Parties
Appellant: Ramesa Johannes Rathebe; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2025
Case Number
1571/2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant found not guilty and discharged on all 11 counts of rape.
Judges
Mocumie, Keightley, Baartman, Phatshoane, Henney
Legal Topics
Single Witness Evidence, Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Fair Trial Rights, Equal Treatment, Condonation for Late Filing
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Single Witness Evidence Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fair Trial Rights Equal Treatment Condonation for Late Filing

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesa Johannes Rathebe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench of Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is entitled to acquittal on all 11 counts of rape following the acquittal of his co-accused on the same charges and facts.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence of a single witness meets the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt required for conviction.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's right to equal treatment and a fair trial was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the only evidence presented by the State against the appellant was the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, which did not meet the high threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt required for conviction. The appellant's version was exculpatory and supported by the evidence, and the trial court erred in its assessment by failing to consider alternative explanations for the complainant's injuries and by not giving the appellant the benefit of the doubt. The Court emphasized the constitutional rights to a fair trial and equal treatment, holding that the appellant was entitled to the same outcome as his co-accused, who had been acquitted on the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant found not guilty and discharged on all 11 counts of rape.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with: 'Accused 2 is found not guilty and discharged on all 11 counts of rape.'