Rathebe v The State

The appellant, Ramesa Johannes Rathebe, was jointly charged with his co-accused, Sekoala, on 11 counts of rape involving a single complainant. Both were convicted in the trial court and their convictions and sentences were confirmed on appeal by the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria. In a subsequent appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal overturned Sekoala’s convictions on the basis that the State relied on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness and that the trial court had misdirected itself in rejecting the accused’s version. Rathebe, whose factual circumstances and defence were materially identical, later sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. His appeal followed after procedural delays and was unopposed by the State.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, was set aside and substituted with an order that the appellant (Accused 2) is found not guilty and discharged on all 11 counts of rape.

This judgment underscores the proper application of section 208 of the Criminal Procedure Act when the State relies on the evidence of a single witness. It highlights the duty of appellate courts to ensure fairness and equality between similarly situated co-accused, particularly in cases of ‘split appeals’. The case reinforces constitutional principles of fair trial and equal treatment, and demonstrates the Supreme Court of Appeal’s commitment to preventing unjust anomalies in criminal justice outcomes.