Solwandle v S (A612/14) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1169 (28 October 2016)

Solwandle v S (A612/14) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1169 (28 October 2016)

The trial court failed to conduct a proper enquiry to determine whether the complainant, a mentally retarded child functioning below the age of 10, understood the difference between truth and lies before admonishing her to testify. This procedural irregularity rendered her evidence inadmissible. Furthermore, material contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and that of other state witnesses undermined the reliability of the state's case. The state failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence could not stand and were set aside.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1169
Parties
Appellant: Samkelo Solwandle; Respondent: The State
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2016
Case Number
A612/14
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant found not guilty and discharged.
Judges
M J Teffo, P Mabuse, C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Child Witness Competency, Admonition Under Criminal Procedure Act, Rape, Credibility of Witness, Fair Trial Rights
Criminal Law Child Witness Competency Admonition Under Criminal Procedure Act Rape Credibility of Witness Fair Trial Rights

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samkelo Solwandle

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court properly admonished the complainant in terms of section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act before she testified.
  2. 2 Whether the complainant was a competent witness capable of distinguishing between truth and lies.
  3. 3 Whether contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and other state witnesses rendered the conviction unsafe.

Ratio Decidendi

The trial court failed to conduct a proper enquiry to determine whether the complainant, a mentally retarded child functioning below the age of 10, understood the difference between truth and lies before admonishing her to testify. This procedural irregularity rendered her evidence inadmissible. Furthermore, material contradictions and inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and that of other state witnesses undermined the reliability of the state's case. The state failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence could not stand and were set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant found not guilty and discharged.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside.