S v Manjra

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: van Blerk JA, Rumpff JA and Holmes JA
• Judgment Date: 06 September 1966
• Hearing Date: 29 August 1966
• Court: Appellate Division

Holmes, J.A.:

The appellant and two others were convicted by CLAASSEN, J., in the Witwatersrand Local Division on three counts of extortion and one of attempted extortion. The appellant is before this Court with general leave from the Court a quo.

The first contention on appeal is that ex facie the record there were two irregularities, namely (a) the interpreter was not sworn, and (b) in any event he was not empowered to administer the oath to witnesses.

Holmes JA

This issue arises in the following way. The trial took place in February and March, 1966. The four complainants and the appellant gave their evidence in the Gujarati language. The interpreter who administered the oath to them and officiated as interpreter was a Mr. Mohamed Laher. A A few weeks after the conviction and sentences, the third accused applied to the trial Court for leave to appeal, and he also alleged the foregoing irregularities. The interpreter was called to give evidence at the application. It appears that on 14th January, 1965, he took an oath before a magistrate, who was a commissioner of oaths, to the effect that in all cases in which he officiated as an interpreter he would do so B correctly, truthfully, and to the best of his ability. Since then he has continuously officiated as an interpreter, although classified as a casual employee. For the most part he interpreted in the magistrate's court, but on at least one occasion in the Supreme Court. On the latter occasion he took an oath in Court to interpret in that particular case. After hearing the foregoing evidence CLAASSEN, J., held that no C irregularity had taken place at the trial. That evidence, and the ruling on the application, form part of the certified record before us. The present appellant, who was no. 1 accused, now raises the same issue, claiming to be entitled to do so via his general leave to appeal. I shall assume, without deciding in his favour, that that course is open to him.

D In this Court Mr. King, for the appellant, relied on the decision of this Court in S v Naidoo, 1962 (2) SA 625 (AD). In my view that case is distinguishable because there the interpreter had never taken a general oath to interpret correctly, nor had he taken an ad hoc oath to interpret in that particular case; see findings (a) and (d) at the foot of p. 630. I therefore express no comment, either of concurrence or E dissent, on any aspect of the judgment in that case. And I turn to the facts of...