About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 179
|
|
Nobela v S (A224/2024) [2026] ZAGPPHC 179 (19 February 2026)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO: A224/2024
Reportable: NO
Circulate to Judges: NO
Circulate to Magistrates:
NO
Circulate to Regional: NO
Magistrates:
19 February 2026
In
the matter between:-
RHULANI
NOBELA
Appellant
and
THE
STATE
Respondent
ORDER:
i)
The appeal against
conviction and sentence is dismissed.
This
judgment is handed down by electronic circulation to the legal
representatives of the parties via e-mail. The date of the judgment
is deemed to be
19 February 2026.
JUDGMENT
FMM
REID J (with KHUMALO J concurring)
Introduction
[1]
This is an appeal
against
both
conviction
and
sentence handed down by
the
Regional
Court,
Benoni,
on
1
November
2022.
The
appellant was
convicted of housebreaking with intent to rape (Count 1) and rape
(Count 2) and sentenced to an effective term of
ten years'
imprisonment, in accordance with the provisions of the
Criminal
Law Amendment Act
105
of 1997 ("the CLAA"). Leave to appeal was granted on 15
November 2022.
[2]
The
appellant's grounds of appeal relate to the reliability of the
complainant's evidence, the alleged misdirection by the trial
court
in its assessment of the evidence, and the contention that the
sentence imposed is shockingly inappropriate.
Legal
framework
[3]
The burden of
proof rests squarely on the State to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. This fundamental principle,
deeply rooted in
our common law and enshrined in section 35(3)(h) of the
Constitution
of the Republic of South Africa,
108
of 1996, ensures that an accused is presumed innocent until proven
guilty.
[4]
The evaluation
of evidence in criminal trials is governed by established principles,
notably articulated in
S
v Chabalala
2003
(1) SACR 134
(SCA), where the Supreme
Court of
Appeal reaffirmed
that a court
must weigh all elements pointing to guilt against those indicative of
innocence,
considering
probabilities
and
inherent
strengths
and weaknesses
on both sides.
[5]
Where
a witness
is a single
witness in respect
of certain
elements of the offence, the court must exercise caution, but such
evidence may be sufficient
for
conviction
if
it
is
clear
and
satisfactory
in
all
material
respects (S
v
Artman
1968
(3) SA 339
(A)).
[6]
In matters
involving sexual offences, the sentiments expressed in
S
v Mudau
2013
(2) SACR 292
(SCA) are particularly pertinent: rape constitutes a
severe violation of bodily integrity and personal dignity, warranting
firm
judicial response within the framework of the law.
Evaluation
of Evidence
[7]
The appellant
contends that the complainant's evidence was unreliable,
contradictory, and not treated with the requisite caution.
It was
further submitted that the trial court erred by adopting an
impermissible line of reasoning-namely, asking why the complainant
would falsely accuse the appellant.
[8]
While it is correct
that a court should not convict merely because an accused
fails
to
provide
a
motive
for
false
implication
(see
S
v
lpeleg
1993
(2) SACR 185
(T)), a reading of the trial court's judgment in its
entirety reveals that it did not rely on this reasoning as the sole
basis
for conviction. Rather, the court conducted a holistic
assessment of all evidence, as mandated by
S
v Singh
1975
(1) SA 228
(N).
[9]
The
complainant's
account was materially corroborated by two eyewitnesses, Nomsa
Mokoena and Nkuna Ntaka, who testified to finding the
appellant in
the complainant's room, with his trousers lowered, while the
complainant was naked and in distress.
[10]
Their evidence was consistent on the central facts, notwithstanding
minor discrepancies on peripheral details
such as the complainant's
appearance or the presence of mud on her clothing. Such
inconsistencies are not unusual and may even
bolster credibility, as
they reflect
honest recollection rather than coached testimony (
S
v Oosthuizen
1982
(3) SA 571
(T)).
[11]
The medical evidence,
provided by Nurse Lungiswa Makhamba, confirmed that the complainant
had been sexually penetrated. The absence
of
physical
injury
does
not
negate
rape,
particularly
given factors
such as prior sexual activity and menstrual bleeding, as explained by
the nurse.
[12]
The
appellant's
version-that
he
was
invited
by the
complainant
to stage a
break-in
to
search
for
hidden
money-was
rightly
rejected
by the trial
court as inherently improbable. It defies belief that the complainant
would orchestrate such an event in the middle
of the night, only to
later scream for help and allege rape. This version was further
undermined by the fact that the door was
locked from inside, and the
appellant was found on top of the complainant by independent
witnesses.
[13]
In line with
S
v Van der Meyden
1999
(1) SACR 447
(W), where the State's case is strong, coherent, and
corroborated, and the defence version is irreconcilable with the
evidence,
the latter may be rejected as not reasonably possibly true.
[14]
It follows
that the appeal against the conviction cannot succeed.
Sentence
[15]
Sentencing is
pre-eminently within the discretion of the trial court, and a court
of appeal may only interfere where the sentence
is vitiated by a
material misdirection or is so disproportionate as to induce a sense
of shock (S
v
Rabie
1975 (4)
SA 855
(A); S
v
Pillay
1977
(4) SA 531
(A)).
[16]
The appellant
was convicted of rape read with section 51(2) of the CLAA, which
prescribes a minimum sentence of ten years' imprisonment
for a first
offender unless substantial and compelling circumstances
justify a
lesser sentence.
[17]
The trial court
correctly considered the appellant's personal circumstances,
including his age, employment history, and status as
a first
offender. However, as held in S
v
Vilakazi
2009
(1) SACR 552
(SCA), in cases of serious crime, personal circumstances
recede into the
background.
The
brutality
of
the
offence-involving
housebreaking, throttling,
and
rape
in
the
presence
of
a
young
child-demands
a sentence
that
reflects
societal condemnation and
the
need
for
deterrence.
[18]
The period
spent in custody awaiting trial was noted, but does not, in itself,
constitute a substantial and compelling circumstance
warranting
deviation from the prescribed minimum (S
v
Kruger
2012
(1) SACR 369
(SCA)).
[19]
No
misdirection has been shown in the sentencing process. The effective
sentence of ten years' imprisonment is consistent with the
norms
established by the CLAA and relevant appellate authorities.
Conclusion
[20]
In the result, the
trial court's assessment of the evidence was thorough and free from
material error. The conviction is based on
credible, corroborated
evidence
that
establishes
the
appellant's
guilt
beyond
reasonable doubt.
[21]
The sentence
imposed is appropriate, proportionate, and in accordance with both
statutory imperatives and judicial precedent.
[22]
It follows
that the appeal against the sentence cannot be successful.
[23]
After careful
consideration of the written heads of argument, the record of
proceedings,
and
relevant
legal
authorities,
this
Court
is
not persuaded
that the trial court misdirected itself in any material respect. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed for the reasons
set out above.
Order
[24]
Accordingly,
the following order is made:
(i)
The appeal
against both conviction and sentence is dismissed.
FMM
REID J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
I
agree
NV
KHUMALOJ
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
DATE
OF ARGUMENT: 14 AUGUST 2025
DATE
OF JUDGMENT: 19 FEBRUARY 2026