R v Jawke and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Jennett J and Van Der Riet J
• Judgment Date: 22 November 1956
• Hearing Date: 05 November 1956
• Court: Eastern Districts Local Division

Van der Riet, J.:

The three appellants were convicted on a charge of contravening sec. 2 (9) of Act 38 of 1927 as amended, in that they E unlawfully obstructed a meeting convened by the headman of Tyefu's Location. All three were convicted and sentenced to a fine of £25 or three months' imprisonment with compulsory labour, £12 10s. or 6 weeks of which was suspended on certain conditions. Against this conviction an appeal is brought on the ground that the conviction is against the F weight of evidence and, in respect of appellant No. 3, that in the absence of cross-examination of his evidence, his testimony should have been accepted and he should have been acquitted.

Mr. Seligson for the appellants, in a careful argument, relied mainly upon the fact that the Crown case depended on the evidence of a single witness, namely the headman, who had convened the meeting. He argued G that the headman had an interest in the proceedings and was biassed (see R v Mokoena, 1932 OPD 79), mentioning that the headman had referred to those persons who were creating a disturbance as 'evil doers', and that they were members of the Congress, showing political bias. He argued that the headman therefore had a motive for giving this evidence (see R v Ditshego, 1932 OPD 164, and R v Dikant and H Others, 1948 (1) SA 693 (O)), that his evidence was vague (see van Heerden v R., 1940 (1) P.H. F43), and that there was no corroboration of his evidence though there were many people present at the meeting (see R v Adam, 1932 T.P.D. 272, R v Mathews, 1939 T.P.D. 98, and R v Mokoena, 1956 (3) SA 81 (AD)).

Van der Riet J

It certainly is unfortunate that one or other of the persons present was not called, but Mr. Imber, on behalf of the Crown, points out that there may be a good reason for not involving others, and no inference should A therefore be drawn (see R v Matsoso, 1950 (4) SA 178 (O)). But the magistrate was fully alive to these criticisms, and did not overlook the provisions of sec. 256 of Act 56 of 1955. He dealt with the questions of bias in his judgment, and in spite of Mr. Seligson's criticisms of the headman's evidence I am not disposed to disagree with the magistrate; moreover there is corroboration to be found in the appellants' evidence. B He considered the headman to be a satisfactory witness, and so far as one can judge from a record this conclusion appears to be justified.

The charge alleges that all and each of the appellants used the language set out, to the effect that the meeting would not be held and that the headman would be thrown out by force. It was argued that in this respect C the headman's evidence was vague and the allegation not proved, but the headman made it clear that, if the express words were not uttered by each, they certainly indicated a common purpose and used words to a similar effect. On the other...