S v Mojoe [2010] ZAFSHC 23 (25 February 2010)
- Citation
- [2010] ZAFSHC 23
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- HANCKE, R, JORDAAN, R
- Case number
- 41/2010
More details
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Panel
- HANCKE, R, JORDAAN, R
- Case number
- 41/2010
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the complainant was not afforded the opportunity to testify in her mother tongue, Xhosa, but instead testified in Sotho, a language she was not fluent in. This resulted in contradictions in her evidence, which she attributed to her limited knowledge of Sotho. The irregularity prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial and rendered the proceedings unfair. The only remedy was to set aside the proceedings and order that the matter commence de novo before another magistrate.
Court disposition
Proceedings set aside; matter to commence de novo before another magistrate.
Orders
- The proceedings are set aside.
- The matter must commence de novo before another magistrate.
02
Material facts
Parties
The State
ApplicantGeorge Khosana Mojoe
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Review / Special Review Under Section 304(4) of Act 51 of 1977
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused's right to a fair trial was infringed due to the complainant testifying in a language she was not fluent in.
- 02
Whether the proceedings should be set aside and commenced de novo before another magistrate.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The prosecution did not object to the defence's submission that the proceedings be set aside and recommenced before another magistrate. The complainant testified through an interpreter but not in her mother tongue, resulting in contradictions attributed to her limited knowledge of Sotho. The prosecution acknowledged the irregularity and supported the recommendation for a de novo trial.
- Respondent
- The defence argued that the proceedings should be set aside because the complainant was not afforded the opportunity to testify in her mother tongue, Xhosa, which led to material contradictions in her evidence and prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial. The defence requested that the matter be heard afresh before a different magistrate.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
WAHLHAUS AND OTHERS v ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE, JOHANNESBURG AND ANOTHER 1959 (3) SA 113 (A) at 119G
A higher court has the inherent power to review proceedings of a lower court before their conclusion in appropriate cases to prevent injustice.
- 02
MOTATA v NAIR NO AND ANOTHER 2009 (1) SASV 263 (T) at 266F – 267H
It is in the interests of justice that a witness, whether for the state or defence, should testify in his or her mother tongue or a language in which he or she is fluent, to ensure an accurate record and a fair process for both parties.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the complainant was not afforded the opportunity to testify in her mother tongue, Xhosa, but instead testified in Sotho, a language she was not fluent in. This resulted in contradictions in her evidence, which she attributed to her limited knowledge of Sotho. The irregularity prejudiced the accused's right to a fair trial and rendered the proceedings unfair. The only remedy was to set aside the proceedings and order that the matter commence de novo before another magistrate.
Obiter and limits
- Both the prosecution and defence are entitled to a fair process, which includes witnesses testifying in a language they are comfortable with.
- The court expressed gratitude for the assistance provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions in the matter.
Court disposition
Proceedings set aside; matter to commence de novo before another magistrate.
- The proceedings are set aside.
- The matter must commence de novo before another magistrate.
Source and reliance status
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Judgment
VRYSTAATSE HOË HOF, BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIEK VAN SUID-AFRIKA
Saak nommer. : 41/2010
In die aansoek tussen:
DIE
STAAT
en
GEORGE
KHOSANA MOJOE
_____________
CORAM: HANCKE, R et JORDAAN, R
UITSPRAAK: HANCKE,
R
GELEWER OP: 25 FEBRUARIE 2010
[1] Die beskuldigde in hierdie saak is aangekla van aanranding met die opset om ernstig te beseer op sy vervreemde eggenote. Tydens herverhoor toe die aanklaer die klaagster uitgevra het oor sekere weersprekings in haar getuienis, het sy te kenne gegee dat sy nie ‘n Sotho persoon is nie maar dat sy Xhosasprekend is en dat sy ook met haar kinders Xhosa praat.
[2] Aan die einde van die klaagster se getuienis het die verdediging ook aan die hand gedoen dat die verrigtinge gestaak word en dat die saak de novo voor ‘n ander hof moet begin. Die landdros het daarna die verrigtinge gestaak en die saak na die Hooggeregshof verwys as ‘n spesiale hersiening involge Artikel 304(4) van Wet 51 van 1977 ten einde die verrigtinge ter syde te stel.
[3] Na ontvangs van die hersiening het ek die aangeleentheid verwys na die Direkteur van Openbare Vervolging vir sy mening hierin en het Adv. Chalale van gemelde kantoor aan my ‘n volledige kommentaar verskaf. Die hof is dankbaar vir sy hulp in hierdie aangeleentheid en word hy daarvoor bedank.
[4] ‘n Hoër Hof, alhoewel traag om die verrigtinge van ‘n laer hof te hersien voor die afhandeling daarvan, het die inherente bevoegdheid in gepaste gevalle om dit wel te doen ten einde ‘n onreg te vermy. WAHLHAUS AND OTHERS v ADDITIONAL MAGISTRATE, JOHANNESBURG AND ANOTHER 1959 (3) SA 113 (A) te 119G; MOTATA v NAIR NO AND ANOTHER 2009 (1) SASV 263 (T) te 266F – 267H.
[5] Dit is in belang van geregtigheid dat ‘n getuie, hetsy vir die staat of vir die verdediging, sy of haar getuienis aflê in dié se moedertaal, of in ‘n taal waarin sy/hy tuis is. Indien dit nie gebeur, kan dit tot gevolg hê dat die notule van die verrigtinge nie ‘n getroue en korrekte weergawe is van dit wat ‘n getuie gepoog het om te getuig nie, wat ‘n onreg vir ‘n party tot gevolg kan hê. Beide partye, dit wil sê die staat en die verdediging, is geregtig op ‘n billike proses.
[6] Alhoewel die klaagster deur middel van ‘n tolk getuig het, is dit nie duidelik waarom sy nie van die begin af in Xhosa getuig het nie, klaarblyklik omdat die tolk nie Xhosa magtig was nie. Hoe dit ookal sy die klaagster se getuienis is deurspek van weersprekings, wat volgens haar te wyte is aan haar gebrekkige kennis van Sotho. Daar is geen rede om dit te bevraagteken nie.
[7] Deur die aanbied van die klaagster se getuienis in Sotho in die omstandighede het na my mening ‘n onreëlmatigheid tot gevolg gehad wat reeds tot ‘n regskending gelei het. Die enigste manier om dit reg te stel is om die verrigtinge ter syde te stel en te gelas dat die verrigtinge de novo voor ‘n ander landdros moet begin, soos deur die verhoorlanddros, en Adv. Chalale in die vooruitsig gestel is.
[8] Bygevolg word gelas dat die verrigtinge ter syde gestel word en dat die verrigtinge de novo voor ‘n ander landdros moet begin.
_____
S. P. B. HANCKE, R
Ek stem saam.
____
A. F. JORDAAN, R
/EM
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.