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

Kok v S (CA33/2019; RC24/2016)

Kok v S (CA33/2019; RC24/2016) [2024] ZANWHC 133 (24 May 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA33/2019; RC24/2016

Judges

Dibetso-Bodibe, M.E Mmolawa

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a rape conviction, finding the child complainant had been properly admonished and her evidence was reliable and corroborated.

• Rape
• Child Witness
• Admonishment Of Witness
• Section 164 Criminal Procedure Act
• Single Witness Evidence
• Child-witness

Sangweni v S (AR 220/2018)

Sangweni v S (AR 220/2018) [2019] ZAKZPHC 8; 2019 (1) SACR 672 (KZP) (1 March 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 220/2018

Judges

Ploos van Amstel, Gyanda

The magistrate's single question to the complainant regarding her understanding 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 the complainant's evidence was inadmissible because the magistrate did not adequately determine whether she understood the importance of speaking the truth and the consequences of telling lies. As a result, the conviction and sentence based on her evidence could not stand, and the appeal was upheld.

Source excerpt

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

Soares and Another v S (CAF26/2016)

Soares and Another v S (CAF26/2016) [2017] ZANWHC 24 (15 June 2017)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CAF26/2016

Judges

JT Djaje, RD Hendricks

The trial court failed to properly establish whether the child complainant understood the nature and import of the oath or the importance of speaking the truth, as required by section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The questions posed did not ascertain her understanding, and her responses indicated confusion. The trial court also failed to appoint an intermediary for the child witness, despite clear indications of undue mental stress, and instead appointed a guardian without statutory basis. The evidence of the complainant was unreliable, and the second complainant did not testify. The me…

Source excerpt

• Rape
• Child Witness Competence
• Section 164 Criminal Procedure Act
• Section 170a Criminal Procedure Act
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Reasonable Doubt

Mali v S (CA&R217/2015)

Mali v S (CA&R217/2015) [2017] ZAECGHC 55; 2017 (2) SACR 378 (ECG) (16 May 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 217/2015

Judges

Malusi, Molony

The court found that the complainant's evidence was inadmissible due to the regional magistrate's failure to properly admonish her in accordance with section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The irregularity was procedural and technical, and did not result in prejudice to the appellant's defence. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Regional Court for the complainant to be properly admonished, her evidence to be confirmed, and the trial to proceed in accordance with the law. The interests of justice required correction of the irregularity, as neithe…

Source excerpt

• Child Witness Evidence
• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Procedural Irregularity
• Section 164 Criminal Procedure Act
• Fair Trial Rights

Pelega v S (CAF 03/2012)

Pelega v S (CAF 03/2012) [2012] ZANWHC 54 (1 June 2012)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CAF 03/2012

Judges

Gutta, M.M. Leeuw, A.A. Landman

Appeal against a rape conviction succeeded because the child complainant was not properly admonished, making her evidence unreliable and inadmissible.

• Child Witness Competence
• Admonition To Tell Truth
• Fair Trial Rights
• Irregularity In Proceedings
• Rape
• Section 164 Criminal Procedure Act

S v Tsukulu and Others (G5398/2010)

S v Tsukulu and Others (G5398/2010) [2010] ZAKZPHC 68 (1 October 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

G5398/2010

Judges

Ngwenya, Theron

On automatic review, the High Court set aside the convictions and sentences after finding that trial misdirections denied the accused a fair trial.

• Fair Trial Rights
• Adducing And Challenging Evidence
• Misdirection By Magistrate
• Identification Of Exhibits
• Section 164 Criminal Procedure Act
• Fair-trial-rights

S v Ngwebane (A2258/2004)

S v Ngwebane (A2258/2004) [2008] ZAGPHC 197 (28 May 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A2258/2004

Judges

N Ranchod, M Motimele

The High Court set aside a rape conviction after finding the child-witness admonition under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act was procedurally defective.

• Admonition Of Youthful Witnesses
• Section 164 Criminal Procedure Act
• Irregularity In Trial
• Trial De Novo
• Criminal-law
• Witness-admonition

Lewis and Another v S (A387/2002)

Lewis and Another v S (A387/2002) [2003] ZAWCHC 22 (5 June 2003)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A387/2002

Judges

Yekiso, Hlophe

The court held that the magistrate did not commit an irregularity by admonishing the child witness to speak the truth without conducting a formal enquiry, as recent Supreme Court of Appeal decisions have established that such an enquiry is not always necessary and mere youthfulness may justify the presiding officer's opinion. On the merits, the evidence did not establish the first appellant's participation in the robbery beyond reasonable doubt, as there was no direct evidence linking him to the offence and the witness's references to him were vague and inconclusive. In contrast, the second a…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Child Witness Evidence
• Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
• Standard Of Proof
• Section 164 Criminal Procedure Act

Director of Public Prosecutions Kwazulu-Natal v Mekka (57/2002)

Director of Public Prosecutions Kwazulu-Natal v Mekka (57/2002) [2003] ZASCA 17; 2003 (4) SA 275 (SCA); 2003 (2) SACR 1 (SCA) (26 March 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

57/2002

Judges

Vivier, Olivier, Streicher, Farlam, Jones

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not require a formal inquiry in all circumstances to determine whether a witness understands the nature and import of the oath. The magistrate, having established the complainant's age and her understanding of the difference between truth and lies, was entitled to find that, due to her youthfulness, she did not understand the nature and import of the oath. The magistrate's approach was consistent with the precedent set in S v B, which permits such a finding based on youthfulness alone. The Court further held…

Source excerpt

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