South Africa

The appellant was convicted of repeatedly raping a woman with another man and sentenced to 15 years in prison under s 51(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997 (the Act). When the appellant appealed the ruling and the sentence it was found that his conviction should in fact be read under s 51(1) of the Act which imposes a minimum sentence of life in prison when the victim was raped more than once by more than one person. He was duly sentenced to life in prison and his appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted in a regional magistrates' court of one count of human trafficking, three counts of rape, one count of assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and one count of common assault against a 14-year-old schoolgirl, whom he had married in accordance with customary marriage laws. After she ran away from the appellant, the appellant took the complainant to Cape Town by taxi, where they resided with the appellant's brother and his wife. There, the incidents of rape and assault occurred.

K. sued to recover damages from the Minister of Safety and Security from being raped and assaulted by three uniformed and on-duty police sergeants.  The High Court held that the actions of the police officers fell out of the scope of their employment and that the Minister could not be held vicariously liable for their conduct.  The Court held that although the police officers' actions were obviously a clear deviation from their duty, there was a sufficiently close relationship between their employment and the wrongful conduct to hold the Minister liable. 

The issue in this case was whether the fact that no provision was made for same-sex couples to marry denied those parties equal protection of the law and was thus unfairly discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation, contrary to the Constitution’s protection of sexual orientation. The common law and the Marriage Act 25 of 1961 defined marriage as between man and woman.

The case was initially brought to the High Court by individuals who had suffered childhood sexual molestation by the deceased, a prominent financier and philanthropist, in the 1970s and ‘80s. The applicants were unable to pursue criminal charges due of the effect of s18(f) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1997, which imposed a 20-year statute of limitations for most sexual offences (excluding rape, sexual trafficking, and using a child or a mentally disabled person for pornographic purposes). However, the High Court found s18(f) to be unconstitutional.

A man in South Africa was convicted of raping his adopted daughter over the course of a sexually abusive relationship that lasted several years and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The judge overruled claims that the victim had given consent, holding that the victim’s lack of resistance did not qualify as active consent. Furthermore, the judge held that that the perpetrator had knowingly employed sexual grooming techniques to leverage the victim into sexual acts.

The appellant was charged with the rape of a nine-year-old girl. At trial, evidence demonstrated that he had penetrated the girl anally, which required a conviction for indecent assault rather than rape.  The High Court, however, amended the common law definition of rape to include anal penetration as well and made the definition gender-neutral.  The appellant appealed.

The issue in this case was to what extent, in Xitsonga customary law, the absence of a first wife’s consent to her husband’s subsequent polygamous marriages affects the validity of those marriages. In this case, the applicant entered into a customary marriage with the deceased in 1984. The applicant objected to the respondent’s claim that she entered a valid customary polygamous marriage to the deceased in 2008, 13 months before the deceased’s death.

The respondent won a judgment against the appellant for 13 by a manager trainee employed  by the appellant.  On appeal the appellant claimed (1) it could not be held liable for its employee's actions that occurred off work premises, (2) it had no knowledge of the harassment incidences, and (3) the employee was not acting within the scope of employment.   The court held that employers have a legal duty to protect their employees from physical and psychological harm caused by co-employees.

The applicant, a male, applied for a senior managerial position previously occupied by a woman. After undergoing a psychometric assessment, he was recommended for appointment. The recommendation was turned down “due to the gender imbalance at SMS level”. The applicant claimed that he had been unfairly discriminated against on the basis of his sex because the target, set by the Gauteng Provincial Legislature, did not comply with the provisions of the Employment Equity Act (EEA), 55 of 1998.