S v Maloma (A376/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 496 (11 June 2015)

S v Maloma (A376/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 496 (11 June 2015)

The court held that the administration of the oath by the interpreter in the presence of the judicial officer is consistent with the provisions of section 162, read with section 165, of the Criminal Procedure Act. The North West Division's decision in Pilane v The State did not consider section 165, which expressly allows for the interpreter to administer the oath under judicial supervision. Therefore, no irregularity was committed, and the evidence was admissible. The doctrine of stare decisis binds lower courts to High Court decisions unless overturned by a higher court or another High Court, but the omission of section 165 in Pilane renders its conclusion unsustainable. The practice of...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 496
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: J M S Maloma
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2015
Case Number
A376/2015
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
The administration of the oath by the interpreter was lawful and did not constitute an irregularity.
Judges
Bam, DM Lambo, S Potterill
Legal Topics
Administration of Oaths, Criminal Procedure Act Section 162, Criminal Procedure Act Section 165, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Administration of Oaths Criminal Procedure Act Section 162 Criminal Procedure Act Section 165 Admissibility of Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

J M S Maloma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is legally permissible for an interpreter to administer the oath to witnesses in a criminal trial.
  2. 2 Whether the administration of the oath by the interpreter constitutes an irregularity that vitiates the proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the provisions of section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act allow for the interpreter to administer the oath in the presence of the judicial officer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the administration of the oath by the interpreter in the presence of the judicial officer is consistent with the provisions of section 162, read with section 165, of the Criminal Procedure Act. The North West Division's decision in Pilane v The State did not consider section 165, which expressly allows for the interpreter to administer the oath under judicial supervision. Therefore, no irregularity was committed, and the evidence was admissible. The doctrine of stare decisis binds lower courts to High Court decisions unless overturned by a higher court or another High Court, but the omission of section 165 in Pilane renders its conclusion unsustainable. The practice of...

Court Disposition

The administration of the oath by the interpreter was lawful and did not constitute an irregularity.

Orders

  • The oaths administered to the witnesses by the interpreter in case SHL108/10, Lydenburg, were correct in law and consistent with sections 162 and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977.