`
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
Reportable/Not Reportable
Case no: CA & R 43/2025
In the matter between:
NHLANHLA SUCCESS MSANE Appellant
and
THE STATE Respondent
Neutral citation: Msane v The State (CA & R 43/2025) 15 May 2026.
Coram: WILLIAMS J et TYUTHUZA AJ.
Heard: 27 October 2025.
Delivered: 15 May 2026.
Summary: Criminal Law – Appeal – Against conviction and sentence on charges
of rape as contemplated in s 3 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related
Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 – s 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act
105 of 1997 – Whether court a quo erred in convicting the appellant on evidence of a
single witness in a rape case.
ORDER
1 The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Tyuthuza AJ
Introduction:
[1] The appellant, M r Nhlanhla Success Msane , was charged with two counts of
Rape, in contravention of the provisions of section 3 read with sections 1, 2,
50, 56(1),56A, 58, 59, 60 and 61 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and
Related Matters) Amendment Act,1 read with sections 94, 256 and 261 of the
Criminal Procedure Act ,2 and the provisions of section 51(1) and Schedule 2
of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 3 further read with section 120 of the
Children’s Act.4
[2] It is alleged that on or about 24 August 2019 and at or near Rooisand in the
Regional Division of Northern Cape, the appellant unlawfully and intentionally
committed an act of sexual penetration with the complainant, to wit, B[...] B[...],
by inserting his penis into her vagina and had sexual intercourse with her
more than one time without her consent.
[3] The appellant was legally represented for the duration of the trial and pleaded
not guilty to the two counts levelled against him . On 24 May 2021, the
appellant was found guilty of both charges and sentenced to 15 years direct
imprisonment.
1 32 of 2007.
2 51 of 1977.
3 105 of 1997.
4 38 of 2005.
3
[4] The trial court granted the appellant leave to appeal against his conviction and
sentence.
[5] The appellant’s notice of appeal is not part of the record , and as such , his
grounds of appeal are not apparent ex facie the record. At the hearing of the
appeal, this issue was raised with counsel for the appellant who indicated that
the notice of appeal was indeed not part of the record, but that the ground s of
appeal related to the court a quo misdirecting itself in finding the appellant
guilty on the evidence of a single witness.
[6] The following facts are not in dispute:
6.1. The complainant and the appellant met each other for the first time on
the night in question and were chilling at Emperors Lounge
(“Emperors”) together with friends.
6.2. From Emperor s, the complainant boarded the appellant’s car to the
residence of the appellant’s friend (P[...]).
6.3. The complainant left P[...]’s place with the appellant to be taken home.
6.4. The complainant and the appellant eventually ended up at the
appellant’s place.
6.5. The appellant engaged in sexual intercourse more than once with the
complainant.
[7] What is in dispute is whether the complainant was raped or whether there was
consensual sexual intercourse between the appellant and the complainant.
State’s case:
[8] The complainant, B[...] B[...] , testified that she is 23 years old. She testified
that on that evening , she was picked up by her friend (M[...]) and this friend’s
boyfriend (P[...]) to go to Emperors . Upon their arrival there, they met with the
4
appellant, who would frequently come to the three of them and check up on
her. She informed P[...] that the appellant’s behavi our made her
uncomfortable. She said that she did not consume any alcohol at Emperors
and was only drinking water. She left Emperors Lounge with the appellant to
go to P[...]’s house and chilled there for a while. She informed them that she
wanted to go home, since she needed to do laundry in the morning. P[...]
asked the appellant to drop her off and she left with him as she did not see
any harm in him taking her home.
[9] Whilst travelling, she noticed that the appellant turned left when he was
supposed to turn right to get to her place . S he cautioned him that he had
taken the wrong turn and he responded that it is fine, he just wanted to talk to
her, and told her that his name is Sipho. She saw him take the turnoff to
Voyisanto and asked him why he was going there, and he responded, “you will
see”. She could see that the appellant was drunk and that he was speeding. It
turned out that the turn to Voyisanto would lead to the appellant’s place of
residence. When they arrived at his place, she stayed in the car whilst he went
inside. He came back and requested her to come inside. When she
questioned why he was not taking her home, he again said that he wanted
them to talk. She eventually, reluctantly so, entered his home. He offered her
a chair, and he went outside for a while.
[10] Upon his return, he asked her to come sit with him in his bedroom because it
was cold where she was sitting. Upon her asking, he assured her that he did
not want to have sex with her and even questioned why he would even want
to do that. He told her that he only wanted to talk to her , and she believed him
given the sincere look in his face and how calm he was . She went into his
bedroom, took off her boots and went to sit on the bed. He was lying on the
bed, and she thought he was asleep. She was wearing a denim jacket and
bed, and she thought he was asleep. She was wearing a denim jacket and
jeans with a tight underneath . She took off her boots and got into bed fully
dressed. She was still under the impression that the appellant was sleeping.
[11] The appellant however then started kissing her, biting her lower lip , and
because it was uncomfortable and painful, she started pushing him away. He
then started “messing” with her clothes and tried to undress her. She was
5
wrestling with him for over an hour to prevent him from undressing her. She
asked him not to take her clothes off , and he told her he won’t do anything to
her. She eventually stopped fighting him as she was tired , and he ended up
removing her denim and tights, got on top of her and then penetrated her
vagina with his penis. She testified that she felt helpless because she was
fighting with him not to do it, she had lost all the strength to fight him off , and
he ended up doing it.
[12] She further testified that after he was done with her, he went out, came back,
got into bed and slept. She had asked him to take her home, but he said no
and told her that he would set an alarm for her and that he wanted to rest. She
testified that she was okay with this because she thought maybe he could not
drive or something. She testified that her phone was off as it had run out of
battery. She just sat on the bed because she could not believe what had
happened, and was trying to digest the event. She did not sleep. She tried to
wake him up, but he did not. She later testified that she was crying the whole
night. He woke up when the alarm went off . He opened her thighs, got on top
of her and penetrated her vagina again. She again was helpless and just kept
quiet. After he was done, he went outside again, came back , and she asked
him to take her home. She got dressed, and then he took her home. According
to her, when she got home, she started doing her laundry and took a bath as
she was not planning on telling anyone about what had happened.
Nonetheless, she phoned a friend and told her what had happened that night.
Her friend then told her that it was rape and she must go to the police, but she
refused. She then phoned her friend M[...], with whom she had been the
previous night and asked her to come see her. M[...] and P[...] arrived at her
place around 12:00. They sat in the car, and she told them what had
happened. P[...] was a bit confused and asked her if she wanted to go to the
happened. P[...] was a bit confused and asked her if she wanted to go to the
police station, but she said no , she will be fine. She testified that she did not
want to involve anyone. She eventually decided to open a case against the
appellant on Monday.
[13] M[...] V[...] D[...] H[...] testified that she and her boyfriend P[...] fetched the
complainant in Rooisand , and they went to Emperors. She testified that ,
having been there a while, the complainant informed her that she wanted to
6
leave, but M[...] asked her to chill for a while. She testified further that she left
Emperors with P[...], whilst the complainant left with the appellant to P[...]’s
place, where they sat for a while. She testified that when they went to sleep,
the appellant offered to take the complainant home. In the morning, she woke
up to a message from the complainant in which she said she is not okay. M[...]
then requested P[...] to accompany her to the complainant’s place , and P[...]
and another friend of his went with her. She testified that when they arrived at
the complainant’s house, the complainant got into their vehicle and informed
them about what had transpired. The complainant informed them that they
were sitting in the lounge of the appellant when he asked her to come to the
bedroom, where he undressed her, put on a condom and then started having
sexual intercourse with her. He again had sexual intercourse with her that
morning before taking her home at 06:00. She testified that the complainant
was crying when she told them about the incident. The complainant was
asked if she wanted to open a case, but she said that she would get back to
them. She testified that the complainant told them that she informed the
appellant that she did not want to have sex with him, but did not tell them that
she fought him off for over an hour. She further testified that the complainant’s
boyfriend, Victor, had also been at Emperors that evening with other females
and that that had prompted the complainant to want to leave.
[14] The J88 , completed by Dr N van der Schyff when he examined the
complainant on the afternoon of 27 August 2019, was handed in as exhibit
“C”. According to the J88, there were no injuries on her body and no condom
was used during the alleged sexual offence. It further records an “alleged
sexual assault on Saturday 24/08/2018 at 02:00 by one male.”
Appellant’s case:
[15] The appellant, in essence, denied raping the complainant. He testified that on
[15] The appellant, in essence, denied raping the complainant. He testified that on
the day in question , he had phoned his friend P[...] to enquire what he was
doing. P[...] told him that he was with his girlfriend , and the appellant then
asked to be hooked up. P[...] informed him that he would ask his girlfriend to
invite her friend to come along and to meet him. P[...] phoned him later to say
that his girlfriend’s friend had agreed to meet up with him. He met up with
7
them at Emperors Lounge, where P[...] introduced him to his girlfriend and the
complainant. According to him, he and the complainant were conversing, and
she was in a jovial mood. When he asked her what she wanted to drink , she
said she would be drinking water. He continued to converse with the
complainant for the rest of their time at Emperors Lounge. He was never told
that she was uncomfortable with his attention. He continued to consume
alcohol with P[...] and M[...]. The complainant told him that she is
uncomfortable, and he could see that her mood was changing , and when he
asked her why that is, she informed him that she sees her boyfriend flirting
with other ladies in her presence. He testified that she had consumed alcohol
at that stage and , after a few beers , she seemed to no longer be
uncomfortable. They left Emperors at about 02:00 am , and when he offered to
give her a ride in his vehicle to P[...]’s place, she agreed. They were at P[...]’s
place for a few minutes when P[...] asked him to take the complainant home.
He testified that before they left P[...]’s house, he asked the complainant if
they could sleep over at his place , and she agreed voluntarily. According to
him, they both disembarked the vehicle when they arrived at his place, and
they went inside and sat in the living room. The complainant asked him to
switch on the heater as she was getting cold. He switched on the heater and
the TV. The complainant informed him that she was tired and wanted to sleep.
He pointed to his bedroom , and she went in and got undressed. When he got
to the bedroom, he found the complainant half -naked in bed, and they started
kissing, which led to consensual sexual intercourse. He testified that he had
used a condom.
[16] He testified that the complainant enjoyed the sexual intercourse and that there
was no fighting. After having intercourse and before falling asleep, the
complainant asked him to set the alarm for 06:00 because she wanted to do
complainant asked him to set the alarm for 06:00 because she wanted to do
laundry in the morning. He further testified that after they had woken up that
morning, they had a second round of consensual and protected sexual
intercourse. The appellant’s testimony is that on the same day , he received a
call from P[...], who told him that M[...] had co mmunicated with the
complainant and the complainant had asked to meet up with her. P[...] drove
his girlfriend to the complainant, who informed them that the appellant had
done something bad to her, but was not specific as to what was done. He
8
further testified that on Sunday , 25 August 2019, he received a call from
Victor, the complainant’s boyfriend, who informed him that the complainant
had told him that the appellant had forced himself on her. He informed Victor
that they had had consensual sexual intercourse, but Victor continued by
threatening him and telling him that the complainant will be opening a case
against him if he does not pay her for what he had done. He ended the phone
call and immediately phoned P[...] to ask him to call the complainant and
arrange for them to meet. The complainant informed P[...] that she is at
Victor’s place and that they could come over to his place. After work , he went
to Victor’s place , accompanied by a colleague and P[...]. Victor did all the
talking, and the complainant kept quiet. Victor informed the appellant that the
complainant is traumatised and that he must pay the costs of a counselling
session with a private psychologist. The appellant refused because, in doing
so, it would be an admission of guilt for something that he had not done and
which could incriminate him.
[17] Mr P[...] M[...] (P[...]) was also called to testify. He confirmed that the appellant
is his friend and that he had received a phone call from him on the day in
question, and that he had met with him at Emperors Lounge. On their arrival at
Emperors, they found the appellant sitting at a table, and they joined him. The
complainant’s demeanour changed when she noticed a guy sitting in the
company of girls. She then said she is no longer going to drink alcohol and will
drink water instead. Victor came walking over to their table, poured himself a
shot without talking to them , only spoke to the complainant, and thereafter left
to go and sit at the table he had come from. P[...] wanted to talk to him, but the
appellant said he should leave him, and explained that the appellant had been
sitting with him before P[...], M[...] and the complainant arrived. After Victor
sitting with him before P[...], M[...] and the complainant arrived. After Victor
left, the complainant told them that she wanted to leave, but M[...] asked her to
stay. The complainant started drinking two or three “dumpies”. P[...] further
testified that they left Emperors around 02:00 to go to his place , and the
appellant had asked the complainant to ride with him , to which she agreed.
Not long after arriving at his place, he asked the appellant to give the
complainant a lift to her residence. He dispute d that the complainant had
approached him to express discomfort with the attention she was receiving
9
from the appellant. According to P[...], the complainant and the appellant were
talking and there was no problem.
[18] The following day, his girlfriend asked him to take her to the complainant ’s
home because the complainant had phoned her to say that she was not okay.
He further testified that he went with a friend and his girlfriend to the
complainant’s place. When they got there, they found her standing by another
car talking to the occupants thereof before coming to his car and getting in. In
the car, she stated that she did not like what had happened last night and that
the appellant had not treated her well. She explained that the appellant had
tried to kiss her, that she had pushed him away, but that they ended up kissing
and that the appellant had taken off her jeans and had sex with her. She made
no mention of a condom. He testified that he was shocked by what the
complainant told them. He explain ed that the complain ant looked sad whilst
telling them what happened . He asked her what they should do , and she
replied that she would be fine and that she did not want to do anything about
the issue. He further testified that the appellant had phoned him the next day,
and told him that Victor had phoned him and said that he had raped the
complainant and that he should go see him. He went with the appellant to
Victor’s place, where Victor ordered the complainant and the appellant not to
talk. Victor told the appellant that the complainant is traumatised and needs
counselling and that the appellant must fund it. The appellant refused, saying
he could not pay for something he did not do. During cross-examination, he
testified that:
18.1. the complainant’s mood had changed the minute they walked into
Emperors Lounge because she had seen her boyfriend, and thus she
was not jubilant and laughing;
18.2. he enquired from the complainant whether she wanted a drink;
18.3. he had initially bought drinks for his girlfriend and water for the
complainant;
18.3. he had initially bought drinks for his girlfriend and water for the
complainant;
18.4. the complainant later consumed some of t he alcoholic drinks initially
bought for his girlfriend;
18.5. on one occasion, he had seen the complainant and the appellant talk;
18.6. he did not see the complainant and the appellant touching or hugging;
10
18.7. the appellant did not ask him to bring a friend so that he could be
“hooked up”; rather, the complainant had been asked to come keep
M[...] (P[...]’s girlfriend) company so that she is not bored while the
appellant and P[...] talk;
18.8. on Saturday, the complainant did mention that the appellant had raped
her; and
18.9. Victor did not mention anything about money.
Analysis:
[19] It is trite that a court of appeal will refrain from interfering with the decisions of
a trial court unless there is a clear indication that the trial court has misdirected
itself, either in its findings or in its application of the law. For the appeal to
succeed, the appellant must satisfy this Court, on sufficient grounds , that the
trial court had erred in accepting the State’s evidence and in rejecting the
appellant’s version as not being ‘reasonably possibly true’. This requires
demonstration of a material misdirection or an error in the trial court’s
reasoning or assessment of the evidence. There are long -standing principles
that guide courts dealing with appeals against findings of fact. Unless the trial
court’s decision is shown to be demonstrably and materially incorrect, its
findings are presumed to be correct. These findings will only be set aside if the
record of evidence reveals them to be clearly wrong.5
[20] In a criminal trial, a court’s approach in assessing evidence “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 weighs so heavily in
favour of the State as to exclude any reasonable doubt about the accused’s
guilt.”6
[21] The appellant’s version is premised on the assertion that sexual intercourse
did occur between him and the complainant, but that it was consensual.
did occur between him and the complainant, but that it was consensual.
5 S v Hadebe and Others 1997 (2) SACR 641 (SCA) at 645E -F; S v Monyane and Others 2008 (1)
SACR 543 (SCA) para 15; see also S v Francis 1991 (1) SACR 198 (A) at 204C-E.
6 S v Chabalala 2003 (1) SACR 134 (SCA) para 15.
11
“Given the conflicting accounts presented before the court, a credibility
assessment was required to determine which version to accept, taking into
consideration the totality of the evidence.”7
[22] The complainant was a single witness implicating the appellant in the rape ,
therefore, her evidence called for a cautionary approach before it could be
accepted. It is trite law that the evidence of a single witness must be
approached and evaluated with the necessary caution. However, the exercise
of such caution should and ought not to displace the exercise of common
sense.8 All the contradictions, inconsistencies and probabilities must be
weighed up to arrive at a conclusion on whether the state has proven its case
beyond a reasonable doubt.9
[23] In S v Mahlangu and Another 10, the Supreme Court of Appeal explained that
section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Act 11 (“the CPA”) provides that an
accused can be convicted on the evidence of a single witness. It held as
follows:
“The court can base its finding on the evidence of a single witness, as long as such
evidence is substantially satisfactory in every material respect, or if there is
corroboration. The said corroboration need not necessarily link the accused to the
crime.”
[24] From the record, it is clear that the court a quo considered the fact that the
complainant was a single witness and referred to relevant legal authorities
relating to the cautionary rule . The court found that there were no
contradictions elicited during cross-examination, “other than what was not said
in the police statement ”. The court a quo found further that the complainant
made a very good impression, and was clear and consistent in all material
respects. It found that her evidence was corroborated by her friend , M[...], “to
a large extent ”. The court a quo further found that the appellant’s evidence
7 Sediane v S (A167/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 151 (29 May 2025) para 13.
8 S v Artman and Another 1968 (3) SA 339 (A) at 341A-C.
8 S v Artman and Another 1968 (3) SA 339 (A) at 341A-C.
9 S v Sauls and Others 1981 (3) SA 172 (A) at 180E-G; Ncango v S [2019] JOL 41006 (FB) para 22.
10 2011 (2) SACR 164 (SCA) para 21.
11 Section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides that: “An accused may be convicted
of any offence on the single evidence of any competent witness.”
12
was not corroborated by P[...], and found P[...] to be a terrible witness, who
caused damage to the appellant’s case. The court a quo found that P[...] was
trying to save his friend.
[25] The appellant contends that the court a quo ignored the contradictions and
factors which made the complainant a bad witness, and as such , ought not to
have convicted the a ppellant solely on her evidence. The appellant avers that
the contradictions and improbabilities in the evidence of the complainant
militate against the complainant’s evidence, and ought to have resulted in the
court a quo rejecting the complainant’s evidence. The appellant points out the
following contradictions and factors which the court a quo ought to have
considered:
25.1. the complainant’s version relating to the fact that she voluntarily went to
the appellant’s bedroom, sat with him, took off her boots and loosened
the buttons of her jeans;
25.2. the fact that she agreed to go to the bedroom because she did not think
that he would want to have sex with her without her agreeing to it;
25.3. her testimony that she thought the appellant was sleeping and drunk ,
while also saying she fought with him for more than an hour;
25.4. the fact that the J88 did not indicate any injuries despite the
complainant saying she fought the appellant off for more than an hour;
and
25.5. her testimony that she did not see the appellant put on a condom but
had told her friend that he did put on a condom.
[26] In opposing the appeal, the respondent contends that the complainant was a
single witness regarding the sexual penetration and that the court a quo was
alive to the provisions of section 208 of the CPA, and as such, approached the
complainant’s evidence with the necessary caution. It is also the respondent’s
contention that the court a quo was satisfied with the evidence of the
complainant and found her to be a credible witness , despite the presence of
contradictions.
contradictions.
[27] In respect of the appellant’s criticism that relates to the lack of injuries on the
J88, the respondent submits that there was a struggle between the
13
complainant and the appellant to pull the complainant ’s clothes off, but not a
fight consisting of punches or slaps. That the complainant was merely fending
off his hands while he attempted to undress her. This is consistent with the
trial court’s acceptance of the complainant’s version that she did not consent
to sexual intercourse with the appellant. The respondent submits that it is not
sufficient for the appellant to aver that the complainant submitted to sexual
intercourse, as what is required is active consent and not mere submission.
The respondent argues that the complainant never testified to having
consented to sexual intercourse with the appellant.
[28] In evaluating the totality of the evidence before it, the court a quo correctly
regarded the complainant’s version as reliable and found her to be a credible
witness. It correctly found that the State proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. I t is clear from the evidence that the appellant’s version was not
“reasonably possibly true”. Where contradictions exist ed between the
complainant’s evidence and her statement made to the police on 27 August
2019, these contradictions are immaterial. What is clear from the police
statement, and confirmed by the complainant’s testimony in court, is that:
28.1. they were at Emperors together;
28.2. she was not entertaining him at Emperors;
28.3. they left Emperors for P[...]’s place;
28.4. she had asked P[...] to take her home;
28.5. P[...] had, in return, asked the appellant to take her home;
28.6. P[...] had assured the complainant that the appellant would take her
home;
28.7. the appellant, instead of taking her home, changed the route;
28.8. the appellant assured the complainant that he would not do anything to
her; she pushed him away ; she tried to stop him and she felt helpless
throughout the ordeal.
[29] We are of the considered view that the court a quo correctly rejected the
evidence of the appellant. The evidence of P[...] is consistent with the State’s
evidence of the appellant. The evidence of P[...] is consistent with the State’s
case in that he testified that the complainant informed them that she pushed
the appellant away and that she did not want to have sexual intercourse with
him. During cross -examination, it became clear that P[...] had tailored his
14
evidence and was influenced to testify in favour of his friend, the appellant. His
evidence demonstrated that the appellant’s version of events was not tru thful
in all respects.
[30] There appears from the evidence to be no reason why the complainant would
have lied to her friends, her boyfriend, the doctor, the police and the court a
quo regarding what had happened. The complainant did not know the
appellant prior to the incident. The appellant was a friend to someone she
knew and trusted, and on his reassurance, she was comfortable to travel with
the appellant and trusted him to take her home. There appears to be no
reason for falsely implicating the appellant in such a serious crime. The fact
that she went to his house, sat on his bed, loosened her jeans, did not fight
him off when he sexually penetrated her for the second time in the morning ,
and the fact that she stayed at his place until he took her home at 06:00, does
not take away from the fact that she did not give the appellant permission or
consent to have sexual intercourse with her.
[31] We have considered the evidence and the findings of the court a quo, and we
are satisfied that the court a quo has not erred or misdirected itself in
convicting the appellant of the offence as charged, thus the appeal against
conviction cannot succeed.
[32] As alluded to above, the appellant was charged with rape read with the
provisions of section 51(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, thus the rape
falls within Part I of Schedule 2 and a minimum sentence of life imprisonment
must be imposed unless the court is satisfied that substantial and compelling
circumstances justify the imposition of a lesser sentence of imprisonment.
[33] It is trite that in considering a sentence, the court must have regard to the
seriousness of the offence, the personal circumstances of the offender and the
interests of society , and these must be balanced with the factors that may
interests of society , and these must be balanced with the factors that may
constitute substantial and compelling circumstances that warrant deviation
from the prescribed sentence. 12 It is clear from the record that the court a quo
12 See S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A) at 540G.
15
applied its mind to the considerations above, which have come to be known as
the Zinn triad.
[34] It is common cause that the court a quo has a discretion to determine what
constitutes compelling and substantial factors to warrant its departure from the
prescribed minimum sentence . The trial court has imposed a sentence of 15
years direct imprisonment in the exercise of its discretion. This Court is
content that the trial court did not err or misdirect itself and thus there exist no
reasons that warrant the tampering with the sentence imposed by the court a
quo.
[35] In the result, the following order is made:
1. The appeal against the conviction and sentence is dismissed.
________________________
T TYUTHUZA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION
I concur
________________________
CC WILLIAMS
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION
Appearances
For the Appellant: Adv J.J. Schreuder
16
Instructed by: KBVS Attorneys
For the Respondent: Adv R. Steyn
Instructed by: The Director of Public Prosecutions.