South Africa Case Law

S.S v S (AR220/2018)

S.S v S (AR220/2018) [2019] ZAKZPHC 7 (1 March 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR220/2018

Judge

Ploos van Amstel

The magistrate's single question to the complainant regarding her knowledge of the difference between truth and lies was insufficient to establish her competency as a witness under section 164(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The court held that more was required to determine whether the complainant understood the importance of speaking the truth and the consequences of lying. Without such an inquiry, the complainant could not be properly admonished to speak the truth, rendering her evidence inadmissible. As her evidence formed the basis of the conviction, both the conviction and sentence co…

Source excerpt

• Competency Of Child Witness
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Rape
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 164

Nobela v S (A573/2015)

Nobela v S (A573/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 768 (27 October 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A573/2015

Judges

N Janse Van Nieuwenhuizen, MA Lukhaimane

The High Court upheld the appeal, finding the complainant’s evidence inadmissible because section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act was not properly applied.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Competency Of Witnesses
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 162
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 164
• Sexual Offences
• Inadmissible Testimony

S v Ohentse (34/05)

S v Ohentse (34/05) [2005] ZANCHC 17 (15 April 2005)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

34/05

Judge

Lacock

The High Court set aside theft and firearm convictions because two child witnesses were not properly sworn or warned under the Criminal Procedure Act.

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Child Witnesses
• Oath And Affirmation
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 162
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 163
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 164