South Africa Case Law

Ngaka v S (Appeal) (CA13/2019)

Ngaka v S (Appeal) (CA13/2019) [2025] ZANWHC 137 (7 August 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA13/2019

Judges

R D Hendricks, M Morgan

The trial court failed to conduct a comprehensive and effective enquiry under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act to establish whether the complainant understood the distinction between truth and a lie and the implications of lying. The superficial questioning and lack of proper admonishment rendered the complainant's evidence inadmissible. Without this evidence, the remaining evidence presented by the State was insufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The failure to comply with the statutory requirements constituted a fatal misdirection, necessitating the se…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Child Witnesses
• Section 164 Criminal Procedure Act
• Burden Of Proof
• Fair Trial Rights

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Regional Court Magistrate and Others (1721/2017)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Regional Court Magistrate and Others (1721/2017) [2018] ZANCHC 47 (15 June 2018)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1721/2017

Judges

Williams, Olivier

High Court review of a magistrate’s child-witness competency ruling in a rape and kidnapping trial, setting aside the proceedings for gross irregularity.

• Competency Of Witnesses
• Child Witnesses
• Review Of Magistrates Court
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Gross Irregularity
• Child-witnesses

Makumu v S (CA&R49/2013)

Makumu v S (CA&R49/2013) [2016] ZANCHC 86 (23 September 2016)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R49/2013

Judges

Olivier, Mamosebo

The trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of sections 170A, 162, 163, and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The intermediary was appointed without a proper enquiry and was not sworn in, and the complainant was admonished without a finding that he did not understand the nature and import of the oath or affirmation. These failures constitute gross irregularities that vitiate the proceedings. The conviction and sentence cannot stand and must be set aside. The State is at liberty to pursue the matter afresh if it so elects.

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Child Witnesses
• Intermediary Appointment
• Admonishment Of Witness
• Irregularity In Proceedings

Mpontshane v S (AR531/14)

Mpontshane v S (AR531/14) [2016] ZAKZPHC 67; [2016] 4 All SA 145 (KZP) (1 August 2016)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR531/14

Judges

D. Pillay, A.N Jappie, T.S.I Mthembu

The High Court set aside rape convictions after finding the child complainants’ identification evidence unreliable and the state’s proof insufficient, and it corrected an unlawful life sentence.

• Rape
• Child Witnesses
• Identification Evidence
• Cautionary Rule
• Dna Evidence
• Minimum Sentencing

Mangoma v S (155/13)

Mangoma v S (155/13) [2013] ZASCA 205 (2 December 2013)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

155/13

Judges

NAVSA, MAYA, SALDULKER

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a rape conviction after finding the State had not proved its case on unreliable and inconsistent child-witness evidence.

• Rape
• Child Witnesses
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Onus Of Proof
• Fair Trial
• Child-witnesses

Draghoender v S (CA24/12)

Draghoender v S (CA24/12) [2013] ZAECGHC 55 (7 June 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA24/12

Judges

C Plasket, Z Nhlangulela, M Lowe

Appeal against two rape convictions dismissed. The court held the trial judge properly considered both the children’s evidence and objective facts.

• Rape
• Child Witnesses
• Circumstantial Evidence
• Cautionary Rule
• Burden Of Proof
• Circumstantial-evidence

S v Tshimbudzi (137/2012)

S v Tshimbudzi (137/2012) [2012] ZASCA 200; 2013 (1) SACR 528 (SCA) (30 November 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

137/2012

Judges

Heher, Mhlantla, Bosielo, Swain, Mbha

The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside a rape conviction and life sentence because of major procedural irregularities, poor recordkeeping, and failures in proof and oath administration.

• Rape
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Sentencing Irregularities
• Child Witnesses
• Criminal-law

Ndwandwe v S (AR99/12)

Ndwandwe v S (AR99/12) [2012] ZAKZPHC 47 (6 August 2012)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR99/12

Judges

D. Pillay, Mbatha

The appeal succeeded because the trial proceedings were fundamentally flawed by multiple procedural irregularities. The trial court failed to appoint an intermediary for child witnesses, did not properly conduct in camera proceedings, neglected to ascertain the competence of child witnesses, and failed to ensure fair cross-examination and the best interests of the child. The magistrate also omitted to invite further questioning after his own interventions, which prejudiced both the appellant and the complainant. These defects undermined the credibility findings and the fairness of the trial,…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Child Witnesses
• Procedural Irregularity
• Competence Of Witness
• Best Interests Of Child
• Cross Examination

Bessick v S (A539/2010)

Bessick v S (A539/2010) [2012] ZAWCHC 248 (29 May 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A539/2010

Judges

Veldhuizen R, Henney R, Moses WnR

The court held that the magistrate failed to properly comply with the requirements of section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act when receiving the evidence of the child complainant. The inquiry conducted was inadequate, as the magistrate did not explain the meaning of the oath or affirmation to the child, nor did she properly determine whether the child understood its nature and import. The mere asking of whether the child knew the meaning of the words was insufficient. As a result, the warning to speak the truth was not lawfully administered, and the evidence was inadmissible. Since the comp…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Child Witnesses
• Oath And Affirmation
• Fair Trial Rights

Mbele v S (A198/2010)

Mbele v S (A198/2010) [2012] ZAFSHC 74 (19 April 2012)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A198/2010

Judges

Van Zyl, R, Van Rooyen, WND R

The Free State High Court dismissed an appeal against rape and attempted rape convictions, finding the complainants credible and the life and 10-year sentences appropriate.

• Rape
• Attempted Rape
• Minimum Sentencing
• Credibility Of Witnesses
• Child Witnesses
• Habitual Offender