Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Nobela v S (A573/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 768 (27 October 2017)
The High Court upheld the appeal, finding the complainant’s evidence inadmissible because section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act was not properly applied.
S v Maloma (A376/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 496 (11 June 2015)
The court held that the administration of the oath by the interpreter in the presence of the judicial officer is consistent with the provisions of section 162, read with section 165, of the Criminal Procedure Act. The North West Division's decision in Pilane v The State did not consider section 165, which expressly allows for the interpreter to administer the oath under judicial supervision. Therefore, no irregularity was committed, and the evidence was admissible. The doctrine of stare decisis binds lower courts to High Court decisions unless overturned by a higher court or another High Cour…
Source excerpt
Talane v S (CAP 22/2014) [2015] ZANWHC 8 (12 March 2015)
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
Pilane v S (CA 10/2014) [2015] ZANWHC 10; 2016 (1) SACR 247 (NWM) (5 March 2015)
The court held that section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Act is peremptory and requires the oath to be administered by the presiding judicial officer. In this case, the oath was administered by the interpreter, not the magistrate, which constitutes a fatal irregularity. As a result, the evidence given by the witnesses was inadmissible, leaving no valid evidence before the court to support the conviction. The irregularity vitiated the entire proceedings, and it was unnecessary to consider whether the state had proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was upheld and bot…
Source excerpt
S v Ohentse (34/05) [2005] ZANCHC 17 (15 April 2005)
The High Court set aside theft and firearm convictions because two child witnesses were not properly sworn or warned under the Criminal Procedure Act.
Explore more
