Soul Ramokata Daddy Motsisi v The State

The appellant was charged with rape under the Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1997, it being alleged that he had sexual intercourse with a 24‑year‑old female complainant described in the charge sheet as mentally retarded. The appellant and complainant were neighbours. A neighbour (T) found them emerging from the complainant’s locked house and, after questioning, the complainant told him that the appellant had intercourse with her. The appellant denied having sexual intercourse or being inside the house. The State led evidence from the complainant, her mother, and a medical practitioner’s report (J88). The complainant was not placed under oath or affirmation; instead, the magistrate admonished her to speak the truth without properly enquiring into her ability to understand the duty to tell the truth or to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

The appeal was upheld. The conviction and sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment were set aside, and the appellant’s conviction was quashed.

The case is significant for clarifying the strict duties resting on trial courts when admitting unsworn evidence from witnesses who cannot take the oath, including complainants with intellectual impairments. It reinforces fair‑trial protections by insisting on proper compliance with sections 164 and 165 of the Criminal Procedure Act and aligns SCA jurisprudence with Constitutional Court authority on the reliability of such evidence.