Mamela Maqhula v The State

The appellant was charged together with her two brothers in the regional court, Port Elizabeth, on charges of assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm and kidnapping. The complainant alleged that while he was tied to a pole by the appellant's brothers, the appellant poured hot water on him. There was a material contradiction between the complainant's statement to police (which stated hot water was poured on his feet) and his court testimony (which stated it was poured on his genitals). The appellant was convicted on the competent verdict of common assault and acquitted on kidnapping, while her brothers were convicted as charged. She was sentenced to 18 months' correctional supervision. The magistrate refused leave to appeal and her petition to the High Court was unsuccessful. The appellant sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

• Whether the High Court should have granted leave to appeal against the conviction
• Whether there were reasonable prospects of success in the intended appeal
• Whether the evidence supported the conviction for common assault given the contradictions in the complainant's testimony and lack of supporting medical evidence

The appeal was upheld. The order of the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Grahamstown refusing leave to appeal was set aside and replaced with an order granting the appellant leave to appeal to the Full Bench of the Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Grahamstown against her conviction of common assault.

When determining whether to grant leave to appeal, the test is whether there are reasonable prospects of success in the intended appeal, not the merits of the appeal itself. Where there are material contradictions in a complainant's evidence (particularly between a statement to police and court testimony), where the trial court itself found the complainant unimpressive and noted contradictions and exaggerations, and where the medical evidence does not support the complainant's version of events, there are reasonable prospects that another court may reach a different conclusion. In such circumstances, leave to appeal should be granted.

The court commented on the improbability that hot water poured on a person's genital area would not cause any visible injury requiring medical attention. The respondent's argument that the complainant's clothing might have absorbed some of the impact was noted but not explicitly endorsed or rejected by the court. The court emphasized the poor quality of the State witnesses, noting that the magistrate found both the complainant and his mother to be unimpressive witnesses who exaggerated injuries.

This case reinforces the application of the test for granting leave to appeal in criminal matters. It demonstrates that where there are material contradictions in the State's evidence, particularly between a complainant's statement and testimony, and where the medical evidence does not support the complainant's version, there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The case emphasizes that courts must apply the 'reasonable prospects of success' test carefully and grant leave to appeal where the evidence presented raises genuine doubts about the safety of the conviction. It also highlights the importance of corroborative evidence, particularly medical evidence, in assault cases.