The applicant, Vincent Japhta, was charged with rape arising from an alleged incident on 19 May 2019 at the complainant’s residence after both parties had consumed alcohol. The complainant alleged that she passed out due to intoxication and later woke up to find the applicant on top of her, with both of them naked below the waist. She had no recollection of how her clothes were removed, and medical examination revealed no injuries or evidence of sexual assault. The complainant subsequently sent numerous WhatsApp messages to the applicant, threatening to lay a rape charge and falsely claiming medical evidence in order to coerce admissions. The applicant admitted certain acts under this pressure but later contended that the admissions were false and induced. The applicant’s version was that the encounter was consensual up to a point, that he stopped when consent was withdrawn, and that no sexual penetration occurred. The trial court convicted him of attempted rape and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. Appeals to the High Court and an initial petition to the SCA were unsuccessful before reconsideration under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.
The refusal of special leave to appeal was set aside. Special leave to appeal was granted. The appeal succeeded, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the applicant was acquitted.
The case is significant for its application of s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act, clarifying the high threshold for reconsideration of refused leave to appeal and confirming that grave individual injustice may justify intervention. It reinforces the cautious approach required when relying on the evidence of a single intoxicated witness in sexual offence cases and underscores that coerced or deceptive admissions lacking probative value cannot sustain a conviction.