S v Ragavan and Others (SS67/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 482 (16 May 2025)

S v Ragavan and Others (SS67/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 482 (16 May 2025)

The court held that while hearsay evidence may be admitted provisionally, it is prudent to wait for the actual witnesses to testify before admitting the expert's report as final evidence. The forensic expert, Mr White, is not excluded from testifying and handing in his report, but his evidence should not be admitted before the witnesses referenced in his report have testified. The court emphasized that the State is dominis litis and has the right to call its witnesses in any order it chooses. The court declined to dictate the order of witnesses and noted that the defence's objection does not prevent the State from proceeding as it sees fit.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 482
Parties
Applicant: State; Defendant: Ronica Ragavan; Defendant: Pushpaven Ugeshi Govender; Defendant: Optimum Coal Mine (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Koornfontein Mines (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Tegeta Exploration and Resources (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Maleantlana Joel Raphela
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 May 2025
Case Number
SS67/2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Preliminary Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Outcome
The State is permitted to call its witnesses in the order it chooses; the defence's objection is noted but does not prevent the State from proceeding.
Judges
M S Makamu
Legal Topics
Hearsay Evidence, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Dominis Litis, Provisional Admission
Criminal Law Hearsay Evidence Admissibility of Expert Evidence Dominis Litis Provisional Admission

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State

Applicant

Ronica Ragavan

Defendant

Pushpaven Ugeshi Govender

Defendant

Optimum Coal Mine (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Koornfontein Mines (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Tegeta Exploration and Resources (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Maleantlana Joel Raphela

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Preliminary Evidentiary Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the State may call a forensic expert to testify and hand in a report before the actual witnesses have testified.
  2. 2 Whether hearsay evidence may be admitted provisionally pending the testimony of the actual witnesses.
  3. 3 Whether the court can dictate the order in which the State calls its witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while hearsay evidence may be admitted provisionally, it is prudent to wait for the actual witnesses to testify before admitting the expert's report as final evidence. The forensic expert, Mr White, is not excluded from testifying and handing in his report, but his evidence should not be admitted before the witnesses referenced in his report have testified. The court emphasized that the State is dominis litis and has the right to call its witnesses in any order it chooses. The court declined to dictate the order of witnesses and noted that the defence's objection does not prevent the State from proceeding as it sees fit.

Court Disposition

The State is permitted to call its witnesses in the order it chooses; the defence's objection is noted but does not prevent the State from proceeding.

Orders

  • The State is dominis litis and can call their witness according to their own order.