S v Maqam (CC22/2025) [2025] ZAECMHC 74 (6 August 2025)

Case Note

Case: The State vs Thobilizwi Maqam — Not stated
Court: High Court of South Africa Eastern Cape Division | Judge: Jolwana J | Case no.: CC22/2025
Dates: Hearing — 05 August 2025; Judgment — 06 August 2025

Reportability

Not stated.

Cases Cited

• S v Van der Meyden 1999 (2) SA 79 (WLD) (para [18])
• Rabako v S 2010 (1) SACR 310 (O) (para [22])
• S v Fereira 1961 (3) SA 724 (E) (para [22])
• R v Jacobs (para [22])
• S v Salman and Another (CA & R 69/2021) [2023] ZAECMHC 61 (14 November 2023) (para [20])

Legislation Cited

• Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997; s 51
• Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977; s 144(3)(a); s 220

Rules of Court Cited

None.

HEADNOTE

Summary
The accused, Thobilizwi Maqam, faced six counts including housebreaking with intent to commit offences, kidnapping, and the raping of three young women in Mount Ayliff between 2013 and 2014. He pleaded not guilty and did not disclose the basis for his plea. The State sought to impose minimum sentences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act due to the ages of the victims and the infliction of grievous bodily harm. The court found the evidence of the complainants credible and the DNA evidence linking the accused to the crimes compelling, leading to a conviction on all counts.

Key Issues - Whether the accused was guilty of housebreaking with intent to commit an offence. - Whether the accused was guilty of kidnapping. - Whether the accused was guilty of rape, including the application of minimum sentencing provisions.

Held

• The accused is found guilty of all the charges preferred against him beyond reasonable doubt (para [20]).

THE FACTS

The accused was charged with six counts, including housebreaking with intent to commit offences, kidnapping, and the raping of three young women in Mount Ayliff between 2013 and 2014. He was legally represented and pleaded not guilty without disclosing the basis for his plea. The State invoked the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act for two of the rape charges, indicating the intention to seek minimum sentences due to the ages of the victims and the infliction of grievous bodily harm.

The evidence presented included testimonies from the complainants detailing the circumstances of the assaults, which involved the accused breaking into their homes, threatening them with weapons, and raping them. Forensic DNA evidence linked the accused to the crimes, confirming his presence at the scenes of the rapes. The accused's defense consisted of bare denials, claiming consensual encounters with one of the victims, which the court found to be implausible.

THE ISSUES

The court had to determine the guilt of the accused on multiple counts, including whether the evidence supported the charges of housebreaking, kidnapping, and rape. Additionally, the court needed to assess the applicability of minimum sentencing provisions under the Criminal Law Amendment Act based on the ages of the victims and the nature of the assaults.

ANALYSIS

The court found the evidence of the complainants to be credible and consistent, despite being single witnesses. The testimonies were corroborated by DNA evidence, which established a clear link between the accused and the crimes. The court emphasized that the State's evidence was not seriously contested and that the accused's defense was largely a bare denial lacking coherence.

In addressing the issue of housebreaking, the court noted that the absence of physical damage to the door did not negate the unlawful entry, as the complainants had confirmed that the doors were secured prior to the assaults. The court also clarified that the definition of kidnapping does not require the victim to be taken far from their original location, as long as there is an unlawful deprivation of liberty.

Regarding the charges of rape, the court applied the minimum sentencing provisions, confirming that the age of one victim was under sixteen and that grievous bodily harm was inflicted on another. The court referenced previous case law to define grievous bodily harm, concluding that the injuries sustained by the victims were serious enough to meet the legal threshold.

ORDER

• The accused is found guilty of all the charges preferred against him beyond reasonable doubt:
• Count 1: housebreaking with intent to commit an offence.
• Count 2: housebreaking with intent to commit an offence.
• Count 3: kidnapping of S[...] M[...].
• Count 4: rape of S[...] M[...].
• Count 5: rape of S[...]2 M[...]2.
• Count 6: rape of A[...] M[...]3.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

• The onus of proof in a criminal case is on the State to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt (para [18]).
• Kidnapping consists of the unlawful and intentional deprivation of liberty (para [26]).
• The definition of grievous bodily harm is context-dependent and must consider the nature and seriousness of the injuries sustained (para [22]).

COSTS

Not stated.

NOTES

None.