Rammbuda v The State

The appellant was convicted in the regional court of raping a seven-year-old girl. Following conviction, he was committed to the High Court for sentencing under the Criminal Law Amendment Act and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction rested primarily on the evidence of the child complainant and another child witness, both eight years old at the time of testimony. The trial court questioned the children briefly about telling the truth but did not properly administer an oath, affirmation, or a proper admonition in terms of sections 162–164 of the Criminal Procedure Act. There were also material contradictions between the complainant’s evidence, that of her aunt (to whom the first report was allegedly made), and the contents of the medical report. The appellant appealed against both conviction and sentence.

The appeal was upheld. The conviction and sentence were set aside.

The case reinforces the peremptory requirements of sections 162–164 of the Criminal Procedure Act and underscores the duty of presiding officers to conduct a proper competency enquiry before receiving evidence from child witnesses. It confirms that evidence not properly sworn, affirmed, or admonished is inadmissible and cannot sustain a conviction, particularly in serious criminal matters.