S v Seitisho [2008] ZAFSHC 151 (11 December 2008)

S v Seitisho [2008] ZAFSHC 151 (11 December 2008)

The court found that the existence and service of the protection order were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, as the documents handed in as exhibit C did not constitute an affidavit or a valid return of service and were admitted after both parties had closed their cases. The respondent correctly conceded that the conviction on count 1 should be set aside. Regarding count 2, the court accepted that, although the protection order was not proven, the evidence supported a conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm under section 270 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The conviction for rape was upheld, as the complainant's version was accepted and corroborated by a witness,...

Citation
[2008] ZAFSHC 151
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Booysen Seitisho; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2008
Case Number
10/2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Conviction on count 1 set aside; conviction on count 2 altered to assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm; conviction on count 3 (rape) upheld.
Judges
Van der Merwe, Molemela
Legal Topics
Domestic Violence Act, Rape, Protection Order, Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm
Criminal Law Family and Children Domestic Violence Act Rape Protection Order Assault With Intent to Do Grievous Bodily Harm

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Booysen Seitisho

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the existence and service of the protection order was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the conviction for contravening the protection order can stand in the absence of proof of its existence.
  3. 3 Whether the conviction for contravening the protection order by stabbing the complainant can be altered to assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the existence and service of the protection order were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, as the documents handed in as exhibit C did not constitute an affidavit or a valid return of service and were admitted after both parties had closed their cases. The respondent correctly conceded that the conviction on count 1 should be set aside. Regarding count 2, the court accepted that, although the protection order was not proven, the evidence supported a conviction for assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm under section 270 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The conviction for rape was upheld, as the complainant's version was accepted and corroborated by a witness,...

Court Disposition

Conviction on count 1 set aside; conviction on count 2 altered to assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm; conviction on count 3 (rape) upheld.

Orders

  • The conviction and sentence on count 1 are set aside.
  • The conviction on count 2 is altered to assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm.