Matshiva v S (656/12) [2013] ZASCA 124; 2014 (1) SACR 29 (SCA); [2014] 2 All SA 141 (SCA) (23 September 2013)

Matshiva v S (656/12) [2013] ZASCA 124; 2014 (1) SACR 29 (SCA); [2014] 2 All SA 141 (SCA) (23 September 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the evidence of the child witnesses was not properly admitted, as there was no clear enquiry into their understanding of the oath or proper admonishment to speak the truth, contrary to the requirements of sections 162 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Consequently, their evidence was inadmissible and could not be relied upon. Even if admissible, the identification evidence was insufficient and unreliable, as the complainant's brother could not identify the perpetrator and the complainant's account was vague and contradicted by other witnesses. Regarding the murder charge, the State's evidence was inconsistent and contradicted by medical and...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 124
Parties
Appellant: Jeffrey Khathutshelo Matshivha; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2013
Case Number
656/12
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Outcome
Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences for rape and murder set aside.
Judges
Ponnan, Maya, Shongwe, Tshiqi, Zondi
Legal Topics
Child Witness Evidence, Administration of Oath, Identification Evidence, Cautionary Rule, Rape, Murder
Criminal Law Child Witness Evidence Administration of Oath Identification Evidence Cautionary Rule Rape Murder

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeffrey Khathutshelo Matshivha

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence of child witnesses was properly admitted in compliance with sections 162 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the identification evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the evidence of the child witnesses was not properly admitted, as there was no clear enquiry into their understanding of the oath or proper admonishment to speak the truth, contrary to the requirements of sections 162 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Consequently, their evidence was inadmissible and could not be relied upon. Even if admissible, the identification evidence was insufficient and unreliable, as the complainant's brother could not identify the perpetrator and the complainant's account was vague and contradicted by other witnesses. Regarding the murder charge, the State's evidence was inconsistent and contradicted by medical and...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; convictions and sentences for rape and murder set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The convictions and sentences for rape and murder are set aside.