REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1) REPORTABLE : NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED : NO
Date: 29 May 2026 E van der Schyff
In the matter between:
SANDILE SYDNEY TSHATSHENI
and
THE STATE
CASE NO.: A227/24
APPELLANT
RESPONDENT
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronica/fy by uploading it to the electronic file
of this matter on CaseLines. In the event that there is a discrepancy between the date the
judgment is signed and the date it is uploaded to CaseLines, the date the judgment is
uploaded to CaseLines is deemed to be the date that the judgment is handed down.
JUDGMENT
VAN DER SCHYFF J
Introduction
[1] This is an appeal against conviction only. The appellant was convicted in the
Regional Court. Nigel, on one count of rape. He was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment
[2] The appellant's defence at trial was that the sexual intercourse between himself and
the complainant was consensual. Leave to appeal against conviction was subsequently
granted by the trial court.
[3] The appeal turns primarily on the evaluation of credibility, the proper treatment of
the evidence of a single witness, and whether the appellant's version was reasonably
possibly true.
[4] The appellant contends that the trial court erred in accepting the complainant's
evidence as reliable notwithstanding several alleged contradictions, failed properly to
approach the cautionary rule applicable to a single witness, and wrongly rejected the
appellant's version as false.
[5] An appellate court approaches findings of credibility and fact with due deference,
recognising the advantage enjoyed by the trial court in observing witnesses testify. Absent
a material misdirection, factual findings are generally presumed to be correct and will not
lightly be disturbed on appeal.1
[6] In criminal proceedings the State bears the onus of proving the guilt of an accused
beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence must be evaluated holistically, having regard to
the probabilities, improbabilities, strengths and weaknesses inherent in both versions. The
court does not consider individual aspects of the evidence in isolation. 2
[7] The fact that a complainant is a single witness does not require corroboration in
every material respect. The proper enquiry is whether the evidence, despite possible
shortcomings or contradictions, is reliable on the material issues. Minor discrepancies do
not necessarily render evidence false.3
1 R v Dhlumayo and Another 1948 (2) SA 677 (A) at 696.
2 S v Chabalala 2003 (1) SACR 134 (SCA) at para !15).
3 S v Sauls and Others 1981 (3) SA 172 (A); S v Artman and Another 1968 (3) SA 339 (A).
2
[8] An accused is entitled to an acquittal if his version is reasonably possibly true.
However, a court is equally entitled to reject a version that is materially inconsistent with
the probabilities or so improbable that it cannot reasonably possibly be true.4
Common cause facts and issues in dispute
[9] Certain features of the evidence were either formally admitted or effectively
undisputed. The parties were acquainted; they spent time together on the day in question;
sexual intercourse occurred inside the appellant's motor vehicle; and the complainant later
reported the incident first to Mbali Masilo and thereafter to the police
[1 O] What remained contested was, first, whether the sexual intercourse was
consensual, and second, whether the complainant drove with the appellant willingly. The
central issue for determination was whether the complainant consented to the sexual
intercourse.
Analysis
[11] The appellant testified in his own defence and called no witnesses. His defence was
that he and the complainant were involved in a secret relationship for three months and
that the sexual intercourse was consensual.
[12] The appellant submitted that the complainant's evidence was unreliable because of
various inconsistencies concerning events occurring before and after the incident. These
included differences between the complainant's account and Mbali Masilo's evidence
relating to reporting the incident, and the sending of a message from her cell phone to the
appellant.
(13] The existence of contradictions does not, without more, justify rejection of a
witness's evidence. The proper enquiry is whether the contradictions relate to the central
issue in dispute or whether they concern peripheral matters. In the present matter, the
4 S v Shacke/12001 (2) SACR 185 (SCA) at para 30.
3
identified inconsistencies related largely to collateral events and did not materially
undermine the complainant's evidence regarding the absence of consent.
[14] The trial court carefully considered these discrepancies and expressly evaluated
them against the totality of the evidence. Several features of the complainant's account
were either undisputed or consistent with the appellant's own evidence, leaving consent as
the true issue for determination.
[15] The appellant's version was that he and the complainant were engaged in a secret
romantic relationship and that the intercourse occurred consensually. The trial court
rejected this version as not reasonably possibly true. The trial court was entitled to consider
the inherent improbabilities of the alleged secret relationship when weighed against the
complainant's conduct immediately after the incident, including the prompt reporting
thereof. Having considered the record, this court is unable to conclude that such finding
was vitiated by material misdirection or was unsupported by the evidence.
[16] The record does not disclose any material misdirection in the trial court's evaluation
of the evidence. The learned magistrate considered the contradictions relied upon by the
appellant, evaluated the probabilities, and applied the cautionary rule relating to a single
witness. On the totality of the evidence, the State proved the appellant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt. and the appeal cannot succeed.
ORDER
In the result the following order is granted:
The appeal against conviction is dismissed
I AGREE
EVAN DER SCHYFF
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
4
For the appellant:
Instructed by:
For the respondent:
Instructed by:
Date of hearing:
Date of judgment:
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION , PRETORIA
Mr MB Kgagara
Pretoria Justice Centre (Legal Aid South Africa)
Adv VG Khosa
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Gauteng
28 May 2026
29 May 2026
5