South Africa Case Law

Van der Nest NO v Minister of Police (154/2024)

Van der Nest NO v Minister of Police (154/2024) [2025] ZASCA 42; [2025] 2 All SA 655 (SCA) (10 April 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

154/2024

Judges

Mocumie, Schippers, Coppin, Musi, Vally

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the full court erred in setting aside the proceedings on a technicality regarding the administration of the oath, as the record and context indicated the witness was properly sworn in and no party raised objection. The full court further breached the appellant's right to be heard by delivering judgment without allowing submissions on the issue. On quantum, the high court's award of R15,000 was found to be mechanically determined and not commensurate with the circumstances, including humiliation, deprivation, and malicious conduct. The appellate court, ha…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention
• Quantification Of General Damages
• Administration Of Oath
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Prescribed Rate Of Interest

Armstrong v S (A265/16)

Armstrong v S (A265/16) [2018] ZAWCHC 120; 2019 (1) SACR 61 (WCC) (17 September 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A265/16

Judges

MacWilliam, Allie

The court held that while section 162(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act prescribes a specific form of oath, the omission of the words 'the whole truth' did not vitiate the proceedings or render the evidence inadmissible, provided the substantive purpose of the oath—to ensure truthfulness—was achieved. The evidence of Ms Matoti, who was not sworn in, was excluded, but her testimony was found to be irrelevant and did not prejudice the appellant. The hearsay evidence of the deceased's identification of the appellant was admissible and reliable, as there was no indication of unreliability or motiv…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Administration Of Oath
• Hearsay Evidence
• Identification Evidence
• Interpretation Of Statutes

Ntshigila v S (A392/16)

Ntshigila v S (A392/16) [2018] ZAGPPHC 598 (28 March 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A392/16

Judges

RE Monama, SS Maakane

The court found that both the intermediary and the complainant were properly sworn in and that the complainant, despite her age, understood the nature and consequences of the oath. The trial court correctly applied cautionary rules to the single witness testimony and properly admitted hearsay evidence under statutory provisions. The appellant's version was rejected as not reasonably possibly true, and the alleged grudge was found to be unfounded. No misdirection or irregularity was identified in the trial proceedings. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the conviction confirmed.

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Child Witness
• Intermediary Testimony
• Administration Of Oath
• Hearsay Evidence

S v Pilane (1362/16)

S v Pilane (1362/16) [2017] ZASCA 71; 2017 (2) SACR 154 (SCA) (1 June 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1362/16

Judges

Cachalia, Wallis, Molemela, Gorven, Mbatha

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act clearly authorises the interpreter to administer the oath to witnesses in the presence or under the eyes of the presiding judicial officer. The procedure followed in the regional court, where the interpreter administered the oath in the presence of the magistrate, was lawful and in accordance with both the statute and established practice. The high court erred in disregarding the express wording of section 165 and in relying on authorities that did not address the interpreter's role. The court further clarified th…

Source excerpt

• Administration Of Oath
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Role Of Interpreter

Mkhari v S (A433/15)

Mkhari v S (A433/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 186 (4 April 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A433/15

Judges

N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen, D T Skosana

Appeal dismissed in a rape-of-a-minor case. The High Court held the oath to witnesses was properly administered, upheld the conviction, and confirmed life imprisonment.

• Rape Of Minor
• Minimum Sentencing
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Administration Of Oath
• Criminal-appeal
• Rape-of-minor

Shabalala v S (A420/2014)

Shabalala v S (A420/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 544 (28 January 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A420/2014

Judge

Ranchod

The appeal was upheld on the basis that multiple procedural irregularities occurred during the trial, including the improper administration of the oath to witnesses, failure to properly address the psychiatric report and mental observation process, and infringement of the appellant's rights to a fair trial and dignity. The presiding magistrate failed to comply with statutory requirements regarding the administration of the oath, which rendered the evidence inadmissible. Additionally, the process for mental observation was not properly followed, as the appellant was not given an opportunity to…

Source excerpt

• Intimidation Act
• Procedural Irregularity
• Mental Observation
• Fair Trial Rights
• Administration Of Oath
• Right To Dignity

Machaba and Another v S (20401/2014)

Machaba and Another v S (20401/2014) [2015] ZASCA 60; [2015] 2 All SA 552 (SCA) ; 2016 (1) SACR 1 (SCA) (8 April 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20401/2014

Judges

Mpati, Majiedt, Schoeman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the incomplete record did not prejudice the appellants, as the available evidence was sufficient for proper adjudication. The court found no indication that the administration of the oath was improper, as the record did not show that the presiding judge failed to administer it. Extra-curial statements by co-accused were inadmissible against the second appellant, and the conviction was based on other evidence, including possession of the murder weapon and uncontested facts. The court concluded that the State had proved the guilt of both appellants beyond r…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Hearsay
• Administration Of Oath
• Extra Curial Statements
• Common Purpose
• Sentencing Regime
• Minimum Sentences

Talane v S (CAP 22/2014)

Talane v S (CAP 22/2014) [2015] ZANWHC 8 (12 March 2015)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CAP 22/2014

Judges

R D Hendricks, T Djaje

The court held that section 162(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is peremptory and requires the presiding judicial officer to administer the oath to witnesses. In this case, the interpreter administered the oath, which is not permitted. As a result, the evidence given by all witnesses was inadmissible and lacked the status of evidence. This irregularity vitiated the entire proceedings, leaving no admissible evidence before the court. Consequently, the conviction and sentence must be set aside, and the appeal succeeds.

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Administration Of Oath
• Technical Irregularity
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 162

Matshiva v S (656/12)

Matshiva v S (656/12) [2013] ZASCA 124; 2014 (1) SACR 29 (SCA); [2014] 2 All SA 141 (SCA) (23 September 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

656/12

Judges

Ponnan, Maya, Shongwe, Tshiqi, Zondi

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside rape and murder convictions after finding child-witness evidence was not properly admitted and the remaining evidence was insufficient.

• Child Witness Evidence
• Administration Of Oath
• Identification Evidence
• Cautionary Rule
• Rape
• Murder