Cola v S (Appeal) (A201/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 514 (7 November 2025)

Case Note

Zathulele William Cola v The State
[2025] ZAWCHC 21; Case Number: A 201/2025
Date: 7 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications for the interpretation of consent in rape cases, particularly concerning intoxication. The High Court's ruling clarifies how the notions of consent, especially when one party is incapacitated due to intoxication, can intersect with the legal standards required for a conviction. The ruling establishes a vital precedent regarding the evidentiary standards for such cases, asserting that consent must be explicitly informed, voluntary, and involved an awareness of circumstances pertaining to intoxication.

The judgment underscores the change in jurisprudence surrounding sexual offenses and offers critical guidance to lower courts in the adjudication of matters where intoxication is a key factor. This ruling also contributes to larger discussions regarding the treatment of victims in sexual assault cases and aims to challenge prevalent societal myths about consent.

Cases Cited

• Tregea v Godart 1939 (AD) 16
• R v Blom 1939 (AD) 188
• R v Mlambo 1957 (4) SA 727 (A)
• S v Motara 1963 (2) SA 579
• S v Xaba 1983 (3) SA 717 (A)

Legislation Cited

• Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007

Rules of Court Cited

• None cited explicitly in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This case involves an appeal against a conviction for rape, centering on the issue of whether the complainant was capable of giving consent due to intoxication. The appellant admitted to having sexual intercourse with the complainant but claimed it was consensual. The High Court ultimately affirmed the conviction, concluding that the complainant's state of intoxication precluded valid consent, and that circumstantial evidence strongly indicated non-consensual acts.

Key Issues

The primary legal issues in this appeal include the following: - The interpretation of consent within the context of intoxication. - The adequacy of evidence regarding the complainant's capacity to consent. - Whether the trial court properly applied the necessary cautionary rules regarding evidence.

Held

The High Court upheld the conviction, affirming that the evidence presented did not support a finding of consent from the complainant. The court emphasized the definition of consent under the relevant legislation, determining that the complainant was incapable of giving informed consent at the time of the incident.

THE FACTS

The appellant and complainant were both consuming alcohol at a local tavern. The complainant, a 17-year-old female, became heavily intoxicated and was subsequently found in a semi-conscious state in the appellant's home, where the alleged rape occurred. The key facts are largely uncontested: both parties consumed alcohol, the complainant was followed by the appellant, and her mother found her unresponsive in the appellant's residence. The appellant admitted to engaging in sexual intercourse but maintained it was consensual, a claim that was challenged by the complainant's intoxicated state.

THE ISSUES

The core legal questions the court had to assess included whether the complainant had the capacity to give legal consent given her inebriation and if the appellant took adequate steps to ascertain that consent was genuinely obtained. The appeal argued that the trial court misinterpreted key evidences regarding consent.

ANALYSIS

The court engaged in a detailed analysis of the evidence surrounding consent, referencing the statutory definition articulated in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act. It underscored that consent must be free, informed, specific, and revocable, particularly emphasizing the incapacity to consent due to intoxication as defined in the Act. The court indicated that clear standards around consent must steer judicial reasoning in such cases, highlighting the critical importance of ensuring that consent is not merely implied but distinctly communicated.

The judgment assessed various forms of evidence, including the credibility of witnesses and the implications of circumstantial evidence, to reject the appellant's argument that consent could have been inferred. The court reiterated that consent must be demonstrably established and should never shift the burden of proof onto the victim.

REMEDY

The court ruled to dismiss the appeal against the conviction, confirming both the conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellant. This determination underscores the court's adherence to the principles of justice and the protection of individuals who are incapable of consenting due to intoxication.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This case reaffirms several critical legal principles: - Consent must be informed: A valid consent requires that the individual possesses the capacity to understand and appreciate the nature of the act. - Incapacitation negates consent: A person incapacitated due to alcohol or drugs cannot provide legal consent. - Evidential burden: In cases involving allegations of rape, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish that consent was absent, particularly highlighting the victim’s condition at the time of the incident.

The ruling illustrates an evolving legal landscape in South African jurisprudence concerning sexual offenses and the fundamental rights of victims.