About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZALMPPHC 47
|

|

Tema v S (A24/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 47 (16 May 2024)

SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION,
POLOKWANE
CASE NO: A24/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE
JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE:
SIGNATURE:
In
the matter between:
COLLEN
LESIBA TEMA

APPELLANT
And
THE
STATE

RESPONDENT
JUDGEMENT
KGANYAGO
J
[1]
The appellant was arraigned in the regional court Mokerong sitting at
Mahwelereng on one count of rape
of minor child who was aged 13 years
at the time of the alleged incident. The appellant had pleaded not
guilty to the charge and
his plea explanation was that of consensual
sexual intercourse. The appellant was found guilty as charged and
sentenced to life
imprisonment. Since the appellant has been sentence
to life imprisonment by the regional court, he is having automatic
right of
appeal. The appellant is appealing against both conviction
and sentence.
[2]
The facts of the case are briefly as follows. The first witness for
the State to testify was R[...]
J[...] B[...] the complaint’s
mother. She testified that she is employed at the US Embassy in
Pretoria and the complainant
is her daughter. The complainant was
born on 4
th
April 2006. On 13
th
December 2019
she received a call back from one M[...]. When she returned the call,
M[...] told her to back home as a matter of
urgency as there was a
problem with the complainant. The very same night she drove from
Pretoria to Mosesetjane in Mokopane. On
arrival at home she found the
complainant crying. The complainant told her that she was waiting for
her friend at an Indian shop
when one Sello (appellant) came and told
her to accompany him. She refused and the appellant slapped her 3
times on her face with
open hands. She screamed and appellant told
her that nobody will come to her rescue.
[3]
The appellant pulled the complainant to a secluded area next to
L[...] High School where it was bushy.
The appellant undressed the
complainant’s trouser and panty. He then caused the complainant
to lie on the ground. The appellant
pulled his trouser up to his knee
level, took out his penis and had sexual intercourse with her or
raped her. After the appellant
had ejaculated he stood up and told
the complainant to dress up. After some few minutes the appellant
told the complainant that
he was not finished with her, and he again
undressed her and raped her for the second time. On the first and
second occasion the
appellant did not use a condom when raping the
complainant.
[4]
After the complainant had narrated the incident to her, she took the
complainant to the police station
to go and open a case. The
complainant told her that she did not give the appellant consent to
have sexual intercourse with her.
The complainant told the witness
that appellant is a gentleman who carries firewood for people around
the village using a donkey
cart. Further that the appellant was in
possession of a knife and was threatening to kill her with it should
she scream.
[5]
The witness was cross-examined and she stated that when she returned
the call back, M[...] had told
her that he complainant had been
raped. The witness stated that she did not observe any injuries on
the knees of the complainant.
The witness stated that the complainant
was taken to clinic by M[...] and one Romeo the very same night she
was raped.
[6]
The State called the complainant as its second witness. She testified
that on 13
th
December 2019 the appellant was known to her,
but she did not consent to have sexual intercourse with him. On 13
th
December 2019, whilst watching skeem saam soapie on TV, she phoned
her friend K[...] M[...] that they should meet at 19h00 at the
Indian
shop. After watching the soapie the complainant went to the Indian
shop to meet her friend.
[7]
On arrival at the shop she found that her friend had not yet arrived,
and she waited for her. As she
was waiting, the appellant arrived in
the company of someone. The appellant approached the complainant,
whilst the person who was
in the company of the appellant passed. The
appellant asked complainant of her name, and she told the appellant
her name. The appellant
told the complainant that he was Tshepo from
Gamadiba. The appellant told the complainant that he does not know
her. The complainant
realised that the appellant was lying as his
names were Sello Tema, and was commonly known as Sekhalo, and that
the appellant normally
passes the complainant homestead driving a
donkey cart.
[8]
The complainant moved and crossed to the other side of the road, and
the appellant followed her. The
complainant moved to where there was
a soccer field, and the appellant followed her. At the soccer field
the appellant slapped
the complainant twice on her face with open
hands, produced a knife and asked her whether she had seen a ghost.
The appellant again
slapped the complainant and grabbed her by hand,
and told her to escort him to his friend’s homestead. The
complainant refused,
and the appellant placed a knife on the neck of
the complainant. The appellant pulled the complainant by her head and
they started
walking. As they were walking, they passed the bushes
and L[...] School. They went to a certain house which looked like it
was
not occupied at new stands.
[9]
On arrival at that house the appellant took the complainant’s
cell phone and asked her what she
was going to give her in order for
him to give her back her cell phone. The complainant told the
appellant that she had got nothing,
but that if he did not mind, she
can give him her adidas black jersey she was wearing. The appellant
slapped the complainant twice
on her face with open hands and told
her that she must not take him as a poor man. The complainant tried
to break loose from the
appellant who was holding her by taking off
her jersey, but the appellant tripped her and she fell to the ground.
The complainant
stood up and the appellant again tripped her and she
fell to the ground on her back.
[10]    As
the complainant was on the ground, the appellant told her to take off
her trouser, and she refused. The
complainant tried to scream, but
the appellant told her that there was no use to scream as where they
were, there was no one who
would hear her. The appellant again
slapped the complainant with open hands, put a knife on her neck, and
told her that if she
does not comply with his instructions, he was
going to stab her. The appellant then undressed the complainant of
her trouser and
panty. The appellant pulled his trouser up to his
knee level, took out his penis and inserted it into the complainant’s
vagina,
and started doing the up and down movements. The appellant
did not use a condom. After a short while they both dressed up and
walked
away. She did not give the appellant consent to have sexual
intercourse with her.
[11]
After walking for a short distance, the appellant told the
complainant that he was not satisfied. The appellant
caused the
complainant to bend and there and then the appellant undressed the
complainant of her trouser, took off his trouser
and inserted his
penis into the complainant’s vagina for the second time and
raped her. Again the appellant did not use a
condom. The complainant
did give the appellant permission to have sexual intercourse with her
for the second time. When he was
finished, they both dressed up and
he handed the complainant her cell phone back and told her to leave.
The complainant left and
the appellant walked behind the complainant
until the tarmac road. At the tarmac road the complainant went to the
Indian shop,
whilst the appellant proceeded straight.
[12]   At the
Indian shop the complainant communicated with her sister M[...]
through face-book and told her that she
had been raped. Her sister
told the complainant that she must wait for her. The complainant’s
sister came and fetched her
and they proceeded to walk home. As they
were walking, the complainant saw the appellant, pointed at him and
told her sister that
he is person who had raped her. Upon arrival at
their homestead, her sister phoned their mother and explained to her
what had happened
to the complainant. Her mother told her sister that
they should take the complainant to the clinic.
[13]
The complainant’s uncle, sister and K[...] took the complainant
to the clinic. At the clinic they were
advised to go to the police
station. They went to the police station where they opened a case.
From the police station the complainant
was taken to hospital where
she was examined. The complainant stated that at the time of the
incident she was not sexually active
and did not have any
relationship with the appellant.
[14]
The complainant was cross-examined and she stated that she knew the
appellant’s name because the appellant
used to pass by her
homestead and have a conversation with her sister, and her sister
will call the appellant by his name. When
asked why she decided to
meet her friend during the night and not during the day, the
complainant responded by stating that it
was during school holidays.
The complainant stated that she had told her sister when she left to
go and meet with her friend. The
complainant conceded that she did
not sustain any injuries as a result of been assaulted by the
appellant. The complainant had
further stated that the appellant had
held her with his right hand on her head and place a knife on her
neck and started pulling
her.
[15]
The complainant stated that she had refused to undress, and that the
appellant had forcefully undressed her
of her trouser and panty. She
conceded that she did not attempt to run away. The complainant stated
that after the appellant had
finished raping her, she was bleeding
from her vagina. The complainant conceded that she was known as
S[...], but denied that she
and the appellant knew each other. The
complainant had denied that the appellant had proposed love to her
and further denied that
when he proposed love to her she told him
that she was having a boyfriend. The complainant denied that she had
accepted the appellant’s
love proposal. The complainant denied
that she had walked together with appellant and went to his homestead
where they had consensual
sexual intercourse. The complainant denied
that she was implicating the appellant because she was influenced to
do so.
[16]    By
agreement between the parties the complainant’s J88 was handed
in as evidence without calling the
doctor who had completed it to
give oral evidence. In the J88 the doctor had recorded that the
complainant’s clothes were
dirty (dust), that the complainant
was crying. On conclusion section it has been recorded that no
injuries seen to exclude violence
behaviour, vaginal penetration and
anal penetration, and that the complainant was in her menstruation
period. That concluded evidence
of the State evidence and it closed
its case.
[17]
The appellant took the witness stand and testified under oath. He
testified that he knows the complainant
as they reside in the same
village. Prior to the incident of the 13
th
December 2019
he had met the complainant at the Indian shop. The complainant was in
the company of a small child and they were
going to church. That is
when the complainant told the appellant that her name was S[...]. The
appellant asked the complainant
if he can accompany them, and the
complainant told the appellant that they will talk after she came
back from church. The complainant
told the appellant that she was
having a boyfriend. The appellant told the complainant that he will
respect her boyfriend. Thereafter
the complainant went to church and
the appellant remained at the shop.
[18]
The appellant met the complainant again the following weekend at
Mahamadi’s tavern. The complainant
was in the company of
another person known as R[...], and he did not know whether this
person was the complainant’s sister
or aunt. That is the day
the complainant accepted the appellant’s love proposal. Few
days passed without the two seeing each
other but the appellant did
not have a problem as the complainant had told him to respect her
boyfriend. They met again on 13
th
December 2019 around
20h00. That night the appellant was at Pumelong tavern which is next
to the Indian shop. As the appellant
was at the tavern, he heard the
complainant calling his name. The complainant told the appellant that
he wanted some airtime in
order to call her uncle. The appellant who
was in the company of his friend told the complainant that he did not
have airtime.
The appellant’s friend left them and went back
into the tavern.
[19]
After the appellant’s friend had left, the complainant asked
the appellant whether he was not going
to Barry’s tavern. The
appellant told the complainant that he was going to Barry’s
tavern, but that he was going to
pass by his homestead first. They
walked together downwards the street without any problems. As they
were walking, the complainant’s
cell phone kept on ringing and
she was not answering it. The appellant asked the complainant why she
was not answering her cell
phone, and she said it was her boyfriend.
The appellant asked if it was her boyfriend why is she not answering
and the complainant
did not respond to the appellant’s
question. The appellant did not ask the complainant anymore questions
as the complainant
had told him to respect his boyfriend.
[20]    On
arrival at the appellant’s homestead they entered, and found
that the appellant’s family members
were not yet asleep but
were still watching some soapies. The two went to the appellant’s
bedroom. The appellant took some
food and offered the complainant
some of them. The complainant did not accept that offer. The
appellant ate his food, and after
finishing, he sat with the
complainant on his bed. The appellant told the complainant how much
he loves her, and they started kissing
each other. The appellant
grabbed the complainant’s t-shirt, and in turn the complainant
grabbed the appellant t-shirt. The
two assisted each other to undress
their t-shirts. The appellant unbuttoned the complainant’s
skinny jean and thereafter
the complainant took off her jean, whilst
the appellant also took off his trouser. Thereafter they proceeded to
have sexual intercourse.
[21]
They did not finish having sexual intercourse as the appellant was
called by his elder brother. He went to
see his elder brother, and
when he came back the complainant was talking on her cell phone. It
looks like the person the complainant
talking with on her cell phone
was attacking her. The appellant waited at the door of the room for
the complainant to finish with
her telephonic conversation. After she
had finished talking on her cell phone, the complainant started
putting on her clothes saying
her uncle had phoned her and is looking
for her. They both dressed up and left the appellant’s
homestead.
[22]    As
they were walking, the complainant took another direction which was
not leading to her homestead, as he
knew that the complainant was
residing in zone [...] A[...]. When the appellant asked the
complainant why she was taking that direction,
the complainant told
the appellant that she was having a family that reside on that
street. The appellant accompanied the complainant
up a shop called
Corner. At that shop the appellant turned and went back to the Indian
shop. At the Indian shop the appellant found
that there were many
people. The appellant’s went to Barry’s tavern and found
that it was not full. Later the appellant
left Barry’s tavern,
and as he was walking he met the complainant in the company of
R[...], her brother and someone known
as M[...]. The appellant
greeted them, and that it was only the gentleman who responded to
him. The appellant disputed the complainant’s
version of
events.
[23]
The appellant was cross-examined and he stated that on the night of
the incident he had parted ways with
the complainant whilst they were
still on good terms. The appellant stated that he started to have a
love relationship with the
complainant during November 2019 at
Mahali’s tavern and that their relationship was secret, and
they were not seeing each
other often. The appellant stated that when
he came back from his brother who had interrupted his sexual
intercourse with the complainant,
he found the complainant shouting
on her cell phone. After the conversation, the complainant told the
appellant that she was talking
to her uncle. The appellant stated
that on that night, his brother, sister, mother and siblings did not
see the complainant because
they were in the house, and when he and
the complainant left, his family members were still in the house.
[24]   The
appellant denied that he had raped the complainant, but that it was
consensual sexual intercourse. The appellant
stated that he was
surprised why R[...] who is her friend did not greet her that night
when he met the complainant for the second
time. The appellant
conceded that he never asked the complainant about her age, and that
he was surprised when the complainant
testified that she was 13 years
of age. The appellant stated that the way the complainant conducted
herself and the manner in which
they spoke, suggested that she was an
adult. The appellant conceded that he did not meet the complainant at
the tavern, but at
the Indian shop on his way to church. That
concluded the evidence of the appellant and he closed his case.
[25]    It
is trite that the prosecution must prove its case against the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Equally
trite is the observation
that in view of this standard of proof in a criminal case, a court
does not have to be convinced that
every detail of an accused version
is true. If the accused version is reasonably possibly true in
substance, the court must decide
the matter on the acceptance of that
version. An accused is not compelled to testify, but once he elects
to testify, what the court
must determine is whether the version
presented by the accused is reasonably possibly true.
[26]
The correct approach to the evaluation of evidence in a criminal case
was formulated in
S
v Chabalala
[1]
where Heher AJA said:
The
trial court’s approach to the case was, however, holistic, and
in this it was undoubtedly right: S v Van Aswegen
2001 (2) SACR 97
(SCA). The correct approach is to weigh up all the elements which
point towards the guilt of the accused against all those which
are
indicative of his innocence, taking proper account of inherent
strengths and weaknesses, probabilities and improbabilities
on both
sides and, having done so, to decide whether the balance weigh
heavingly in favour of the State as to exclude any reasonable
doubt
about the accused’s guilt. The result may prove that one scrap
of evidence or one defect in the case for either party
(such as
failure to call a material witness concerning an identity parade) was
decisive but that can only be an ex port facto determination
and a
trail court and counsel should avoid the temptation to latch on to
one (apparently) obvious aspect without assessing it in
the context
of the full picture presented in evidence…”
[27]
The appellant had pleaded consensual sexual intercourse. It is trite
that the requirements for consent are
that (i) the consent must
itself be recognised by law; (ii) it must be real consent; and (iii)
it must be given by a person capable
of consent. In
Mugride
v S
[2]
Erasmus AJA said:
“
The
law further requires that consent be active, and therefore mere
submission is not sufficient. In Rex v Swiggelaar Murray AJA

commented as follows:
‘
The authorities
are clear upon the point that though the consent of a woman may be
gathered from her conduct, apart from her words,
it is fallacious to
take the absence of resistance as per se proof of consent. Submission
by itself is no grant of consent, and
if a man so intimidates a woman
as to induce her to abandon resistance and submit to intercourse to
which she in unwilling, he
commits the crime of rape. All the
circumstances must be taken into account to determine whether
passivity is proof of implied
consent or whether it is merely the
abandonment of outward resistance which the woman, while persisting
in her objection to intercourse,
is afraid to display or realises is
useless.’”
[28]
The complainant at the time of the alleged incident was 13 years of
age. Section 15(1) of the
Criminal
Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment
Act
[3]
provides as follows:
“
(1)
A person (‘A’) who commits an act of sexual penetration
with a child (‘B’) who is 12 years of age or
older but
under the age of 16 years is, despite the consent of B to the
commission of such an act, guilty of the offence of having
committed
an act of consensual sexual penetration with a child, unless A, at
the time of the alleged commission of such an act,
was
(a) 12 years of age
or older but under the age of 16 years; or
(b) either 16 or 17 years
of age and the age difference between A and B was not more than two
years.”
[29]
It is common cause that the appellant at the time
of the alleged incident was 25 years of age. It was not
the appellant
case that he was deceived by the complainant’s appearance and
the way she was behaving that he thought that
she was an adult. It
was only towards the end of cross-examination by the State when it
was put to him that the complainant at
no stage gave an impression to
him that she was an adult, the appellant responded by stating that
the manner in which the complainant
conducted herself, and the manner
in which she spoke, suggested that she was an adult. This was an
answer which was extracted from
the appellant by the State during
cross-examination and was not the basis of his defence. It was never
put to the complainant that
her appearance had deceived the appellant
to give her an opportunity to respond to that. The court
a quo
which had an opportunity to physically observe the complainant had
found that the complainant had a tiny body, and any reasonable
person
who wanted to engage into a love relationship with her would have
asked her age. In my view, this was just an afterthought
by the
appellant and had no probative value. The complainant was still a
child who was not capable of giving consent. On this point
alone, the
appellant in terms of section 15(1) of the Criminal (Sexual Offences
and Related Matters) Amendment Act is guilty of
the offence of having
committed an act of consensual sexual penetration with a child below
the age of 16 years.
[30]
The appellant had testified that when he entered
his homestead on the night of the incident, he was with
complainant
and his family members were not yet asleep and were still watching
soapies. Thereafter the appellant took food which
he had offered to
the complainant, but does not state where he got that food from.
Under cross-examination the appellant stated
that his family members
did not see the complainant when he entered the homestead and when
they left the homestead, but that they
were aware that there was
someone inside house. It was not explained how the family members
became aware that there was someone
inside the house whom they did
not see when she entered the house.
[31]
The appellant did not testify as when did his
brother became aware that he was in his room, but all of a
sudden his
brother had called him from outside his room. When the appellant was
outside his room with his brother, he heard the
complainant talking
and shouting on her cell phone, and that his brother could hear the
complainant shouting on her phone. Surprisingly
the appellant’s
brother who had not seen the complainant entering their homestead is
not surprised and ask the appellant
as to who was shouting in the
appellant’s room. The appellant brother just talked to the
appellant and after they finished
with their conversation just left
without finding out as to who was the stranger their house. That I
find to be improbable.
[32]
The evidence of the complainant as to what had
happened that night even though was that of a single witness,
was
clear and satisfactory. She did not contradict herself and also did
not crack under extensive cross-examination by the defence
counsel.
The court
a quo
had found that the complainant was penetrated
more than once, did not voluntarily submit to sexual intercourse, was
induced by
being assaulted with open hands and threatened with a
knife. Further that it was not true that the appellant had consensual
sexual
intercourse once at the appellant’s homestead. The court
a quo
found that the appellant had fabricated his evidence,
and had testified that he used to see the complainant at the tavern
but could
not tell what she was doing at the tavern.
[33]
The court
a
quo
in
rejecting the appellant’s version had made credibility findings
against him. The appellant in this appeal has not demonstrated
that
the court
a
quo
was
wrong on the credibility and factual findings which it had made
against him. It is in exceptional cases where a court of appeal
will
interfere with the trial’s court evaluation of evidence as the
trial court had the advantage of seeing, hearing and
appraising a
witness. (See
S
v Francis
[4]
).
The appellant in the case at hand has failed to convince this court
on adequate grounds that the court
a
quo
was
wrong in accepting the evidence of the State witnesses.
[34]
The appellant has testified that the complainant might have been
influenced by the person she was talking
with over the phone to
falsely implicate him without substantiating that. Under
cross-examination the appellant stated that other
people might have
said something to the complainant which he does not know what they
said to falsely implicate him. The appellant
is merely on a fishing
expedition as he had no defence at all. The court
a quo
can
therefore not be faulted in its evaluation of the evidence presented
before it. The appeal against conviction stands to fail.
[35]
Turning to sentence, it is trite that sentencing is the prerogative
of the trial court, and should not lightly
be interfered with. At
appeal in which interference with the sentence will be justified is
when it is found that the trial court
has misdirected itself in some
respect or if the sentence imposed was so disturbingly
disproportionate that no reasonable court
would have imposed it. The
test is not whether the trial court was wrong, but whether it
exercised its discretion properly. (See
S
v Romer
[5]
).
[36]
The appellant was charged with rape falling under section 51(1) Part
I of Schedule 2 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act
[6]
(CLAA) in that the complainant was a child under the age of 16 years
and also raped more once. Ordinarily the trial court was compelled
to
impose life imprisonment unless it finds that substantial and
compelling circumstances exists which justify the deviation from
the
prescribed minimum sentences.
[37]
In DPP
Gauteng Division, Pretoria v Tsotetsi
[7]
Coppin AJA said:
“
As held in Malgas,
confirmed in S v Dodo and explained in S v Vilakazi, even though
‘substantial and compelling factors need
not be exceptional
they must be truly convincing reasons, or weighty justification’
for deviating from the prescribed sentence.
The minimum sentence is
not to be deviated from lightly and should ordinarily be imposed”.
[38]
A presentence report was prepared by the probation officer regarding
the appellant. The appellant’s
mitigating factors as per the
presentence report are that he was raised by both his parents and
grew up in a big family that takes
care of each other. The appellant
was working with his late father’s donkey carts to make an
income for the family. The appellant
has been an obedient child who
adhered to the family rules. The appellant is not married and does
not have a child of his own.
The appellant is a good and caring
person. The appellant dropped out of school in grade 10 as he was
struggling with his studies
and not progressing. The appellant is a
first-time offender and had no history of violence.
[39]
The aggravating factors recorded are that the appellant has raped a
minor and he is not remorseful, and
does not take the responsibility
for the offence he had committed. In the victim impact statement the
complainant had stated that
she had been affected very badly by being
raped. She could not eat properly because whenever she was about to
eat she will remember
everything, even the smell that will make her
nauseous. Ever since she was raped she gets heavy periods and very
painful periods
pains. She had lost confidence, courage and
self-esteem. She is scared to be alone and sometimes when alone she
gets panic attacks
and becomes anxious. Her parents had taken her to
a phycologist to express her feelings in order to overcome what she
is going
through. She still gets the flash back of the incident
whenever at school they raise a topic about rape.
[40]
The appellant has been convicted of a serious offence. Rape is a
serious offence, constituting as it does
a humiliating, degrading and
brutal invasion of the privacy, the dignity and the person of the
victim. Courts are under a duty
to send a clear message to the
accused, to other potential rapists and the community that they are
there and determined to protect
the equality and freedom of all women
and children, and that they will not show mercy to those who seek to
invade those rights
(See
S
v Chapman
[8]
).
[41]
The appellant did not show any slightest remorse and he continued to
deny the offence despite the overwhelming
evidence against him, but
it is his right to do so. The complainant in this matter was a minor
child whose interest and protection
are paramount within society. The
complainant despite being a child below the age of 16 was raped more
than once by the appellant.
Courts are enjoined to emphasise this by
the sentences it imposes for offences against children, the
community’s disgust
in and repulsion of this type of behaviour.
(See
S v Mugridge
above).
[42]
The appellant’s counsel was unable to identify any misdirection
by the court
a quo
or a factor that indicates that the court
a
quo
did not exercise its discretion judicially. What the
appellant had presented as substantial and compelling circumstances
are in
my view not truly convincing reasons or weighty justification
for deviating from the prescribed minimum sentence. The aggravating

factors far outweigh the mitigating factors. The court
a quo
will therefore not be faulted for having found that there were no
substantial and compelling circumstances justifying a deviation
from
the prescribed minimum sentence. It follows that the appeal on
sentence stands to fail.
[43]
In the result the following order is made
43.1
The appeal against both conviction and sentence is dismissed.
KGANYAGO
J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
I AGREE
MAPHELELA AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA, LIMPOPO
DIVISION, POLOKWANE
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
for the appellant
:
MP Legodi
Instructed
by
:
Legal Aid Polokwane
Counsel
for the respondent
:
Adv R Mulaudzi
Instructed
by
:
Office of DPP Polokwane
Date
heard
:
22
nd
March 2024
Electronically
circulated on
:
16
th
May 2024
[1]
2003
(1) SACR 134
(SCA) at para 15
[2]
[2013]
ZASCA 43
;
2013 (2) SACR 111
(SCA) (28 March 2013) at para 40
[3]
32
of 2007
[4]
1991
(1) SACR 198
(A)
[5]
2011
(2) SACR 153
(SCA) at paras 22 and 23
[6]
105
0f 1997
[7]
2017
(2) SACR 233
(SCA) at para 27
[8]
[1997] ZASCA 45
;
1997
(3) SA 341
(SCA)