Sekoala and Another v S (A326/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 104 (17 February 2022)

Sekoala and Another v S (A326/2017) [2022] ZAGPPHC 104 (17 February 2022)

The court found that the complainant's evidence was credible and corroborated by the first-report-witness. The absence of physical injuries did not negate the lack of consent, which is the key element in rape. The trial court properly weighed all evidence and reached a justified conviction on all counts. The sentence imposed by the trial court was found to be startlingly inappropriate given the repeated and heinous nature of the offences. The appeal court, having given prior notice to the appellants, exercised its discretion to increase the sentence to twenty years' direct imprisonment for each appellant.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 104
Parties
Appellant: Abel Sekoala; Appellant: Ramesa Johannes Rathebe; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2022
Case Number
A326/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Regional Court
Outcome
Appeal on both conviction and sentence dismissed; sentences increased.
Judges
Baloyi-Mere, N Davis
Legal Topics
Rape, Consent, Criminal Procedure Act, Sentence Increase on Appeal, Gender Based Violence
Criminal Law Rape Consent Criminal Procedure Act Sentence Increase on Appeal Gender Based Violence

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abel Sekoala

Appellant

Ramesa Johannes Rathebe

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence From Regional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the convictions of the appellants on eleven counts of rape were justified.
  2. 2 Whether the sentences imposed by the trial court were appropriate and should be increased.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of physical injuries on the complainant negates the finding of rape.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the complainant's evidence was credible and corroborated by the first-report-witness. The absence of physical injuries did not negate the lack of consent, which is the key element in rape. The trial court properly weighed all evidence and reached a justified conviction on all counts. The sentence imposed by the trial court was found to be startlingly inappropriate given the repeated and heinous nature of the offences. The appeal court, having given prior notice to the appellants, exercised its discretion to increase the sentence to twenty years' direct imprisonment for each appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal on both conviction and sentence dismissed; sentences increased.

Orders

  • The appeal on both convictions and sentence is dismissed.
  • The sentences of ten years direct imprisonment and three years suspension thereof are set aside and replaced by: 'Appellants one and two are both sentenced to an effective twenty years direct imprisonment.'