S v Ndlovu and Another (250/91,16/92) [1993] ZASCA 66 (24 May 1993)

S v Ndlovu and Another (250/91,16/92) [1993] ZASCA 66 (24 May 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the statements made by the appellants to police officers through interpreters were inadmissible as the interpreters were not called to testify, and thus the accuracy of the interpretation was not proven. The absence of the interpreters' evidence was fatal to the admissibility of the statements. There was no other admissible evidence against the second appellant, and the statement of the first appellant implicating the second was not admissible against him. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences for murder and rape against the second appellant were set aside. As for the first appellant, his statement to the magistrate was admissible and proved his...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 66
Parties
Appellant: Simon Ndlovu; Appellant: Jackie Mashego; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 1993
Case Number
250/91,16/92
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences
Outcome
Appeal partially upheld. Convictions and sentences for murder against both appellants set aside. Conviction for rape against first appellant upheld with reduced sentence. Conviction and sentence for rape against second appellant set aside.
Judges
Botha, Vivier, Goldstone
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Hearsay Rule, Confession, Interpretation of Statements, Criminal Procedure Act, Rape and Murder
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Hearsay Rule Confession Interpretation of Statements Criminal Procedure Act Rape and 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Ndlovu

Appellant

Jackie Mashego

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Convictions and Sentences

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made by the appellants through interpreters were admissible as evidence.
  2. 2 Whether the convictions and sentences for murder and rape were justified based on admissible evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence without calling interpreters.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the statements made by the appellants to police officers through interpreters were inadmissible as the interpreters were not called to testify, and thus the accuracy of the interpretation was not proven. The absence of the interpreters' evidence was fatal to the admissibility of the statements. There was no other admissible evidence against the second appellant, and the statement of the first appellant implicating the second was not admissible against him. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences for murder and rape against the second appellant were set aside. As for the first appellant, his statement to the magistrate was admissible and proved his...

Court Disposition

Appeal partially upheld. Convictions and sentences for murder against both appellants set aside. Conviction for rape against first appellant upheld with reduced sentence. Conviction and sentence for rape against second appellant set aside.

Orders

  • The convictions of the first appellant and the second appellant on the charge of murder and the sentences of death imposed therefor are set aside.
  • The appeal of the first appellant against the conviction for rape is dismissed. The sentence therefor is set aside and replaced by a sentence of 12 years' imprisonment.