S v Omega Bearing Works (Edms) Bpk en Andere

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 1977 (3) SA 978 (O)

S v Omega Bearing Works (Edms) Bpk en Andere
1977 (3) SA 978 (O)

1977 (3) SA p978

Citation	1977 (3) SA 978 (O)
Court	Oranje-Vrystaatse Provinsiale Afdeling
Judge	Mt Steyn R en Flemming Wn R
Heard	May 23, 1977
Judgment	June 9, 1977

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde A

Strafproses — Getuienis — Bewys dat beskuldigdes 'n maatskappy en direkteure daarvan is — Dokumentêre getuienis nodig — Hoorsê nie toelaatbaar nie — Wet 61 van 1973, arts. 1, 63, 64, 64 (2), 239 (3) — Strafreg — Persone, aanspreeklikheid van — Staat se saak berus op feit dat een beskuldigde 'n maatskappy is en dat ander beskuldigdes direkteure daarvan is — Nodige bewys — Bewys van sekere dokumente nodig — Hoe bewys moet word — Wet 61 van 1973, arts. 1, 63, 64, 64 (2), 239 (3) — Maatskappy — Oortredings deur maatskappy en direkteure — Bewys dat maatskappy inderdaad geskep is — Hoe Staat dit moet bewys — Wet 61 van 1973, arts. 1, 63, 64, 64 (2) en 239 (3) — Werkgewer en dienaar — Wet op Nyawerheidsversoening, 28 van 1956 — Oortredings — Beskuldigdes 'n maatskappy en direkteure — Wat bewys moet word.

Headnote : Kopnota

In hoër beroep teen 'n skuldigbevinding op 'n aanklag dat eerste appellant, 'n maatskappy, en die ander twee appellante, as direkteure, artikel 53 (1) van die Wet op Nywerheidsversoening, 28 van 1956, oortree het, deurdat hulle versuim het om te voldoen aan besondere bepalings van sekere Nywerheidsraad-ooreenkomste wat na bewering op hulle van toepassing is, is namens die appellante betoog dat die Staat versuim het om te bewys dat eerste appellant 'n maatskappy is en dat die ander twee appellante direkteure van sodanige maatskappy is. Namens die Staat is betoog dat die appellante dit nooit betwis het nie, en dat hulle dit in elk geval deur hulle gedrag tydens die verhoor erken het, en dat die Staat daarbenewens dit inderdaad bewys het, deurdat die Sekretaris van die Nasionale Motornywerheid, O.V.S., namens die Staat soos volg getuig het: "Beskuldigde nr. 1 is 'n regspersoon wat sorteer onder die motornywerheid. Beskuldigde nrs. 2 en 3 is direkteure van die maatskappy". Hierdie bewering was nie deur die appellante formeel erken nie, maar was ook nie uitdruklik deur hulle bestry nie en geen vrae was daaromtrent tydens kruis-verhoor aan die getuie gestel nie.

Beslis, dat 'n maatskappy tot stand kom deur middel van sekere handelinge van die Registrateur van Maatskappye ingevolge artikels 63 en 64 van Wet 61 van 1973, te wete registrasie en beseëling van die akte van oprigting en statute van die maatskappy en die endossement daarop van 'n sertifikaat onder die hand en seël van die Registrateur van Maatskappye dat die maatskappy ingelyf is. Slegs op hierdie wyse word 'n maatskappy geskep. En kragtens die omskrywing vervat in artikel 1 van die Wet beteken die woord "maatskappy" 'n maatskappy wat kragtens Hoofstuk IV van die Wet ingelyf is.

Beslis, verder, dat, by 'n strafsaak soos die onderhawige waar die bestaan van 'n maatskappy 'n materiële feit is wat deur die aangeklaagdes se pleit van onskuldig in geding geplaas is, die bewys daarvan wat deur die Staat gelewer moet word vervat is in die inhoud van die betrokke dokumente hierbo genoem.

Beslis, verder, dat in die onderhawige geval die bestaan van eerste appellant as 'n maatskappy, en dus as 'n regspersoon, deur die pleit van die aangeklaagdes in geding geplaas was en dit deur die Staat bo redelike twyfel bewys moes geword het. Daarvoor was voorlegging van die bogemelde dokumente self of bewyslewering ingevolge artikels 239 (3) of 64 (2) van die Wet noodsaaklik.

Beslis, dus, dat die getuienis van die Staat se getuie ontoclaatbaar op daardie aspek was.

Beslis, verder, dat die feit dat die getuie se bewerings nie tydens kruisondervraging aangeveg was nie en dat dit nie deur verdedigingsgetuienis weerspreek was nie, nie op 'n erkenning daarvan neergekom het nie en sy hoorsê getuienis nie daardeur toelaatbaar gemaak was nie. Dus moet die appèl slaag.

Beslis, verder, dat in elk geval die Staat versuim het om sekere andere nodige feite te bewys.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Criminal procedure — Evidence — Proof that accused a company and directors thereof — Documentary evidence necessary — Hearsay inadmissible — Act 61 of 1973, secs. 1, 63, 64, 64 (2), 239 (3) — Criminal law — Persons, liability of — State's case resting on fact that one accused a company and that other accused directors thereof — Necessary proof — Proof of certain documents necessary — How they must be proved — Act 61 of 1973, secs. 1, 63, 64, 64 (2), 239 (3) — Company — Contraventions by company and directors — Proof that company, in fact created — How State must prove this — Act 61 of 1973, secs. 1, 63, 64, 64 (2), 239 (3) — Master and servant — Industrial Conciliation Act, 28 of 1956 — Offences — Accused a company and directors — What must be proved.

Headnote : Kopnota

In an appeal against a conviction on a charge that first appellant, a company, and two other appellants, as directors, contravened section 53 (1) of the Industrial Conciliation Act, 28 of 1956, in that they failed to comply with particular provisions of certain Industrial Council Agreements which were alleged to be applicable to them, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that the State had failed to prove that first appellant was a company and that the other two appellants were directors of such company. On behalf of the State it was contended that the appellants never disputed this, and that in any case they acknowledged it by their conduct during the trial, and that the State had in addition in fact proved it, in that the Secretary of the National Motor Industry, O.F.S., had given evidence on behalf of the State as follows: "Accused No. 1 is a legal persona falling into the motor industry. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are directors of the company". This allegation had not been expressly

1977 (3) SA p979

acknowledged by the appellants and no questions had been put to the witness about it during cross-examination.

Held, that a company came into being by means of certain acts of the Registrar of Companies under sections 63 and 64 of Act 61 of 1973, to wit, registration and sealing of the memorandum and articles of the company and the endorsement thereon of a certificate under the hand and seal of the Registrar of Companies that the company has been incorporated. Only in this fashion was a company created. And under the definition contained in section I of the Act the word "company" meant a company which has been incorporated under Chapter IV of the Act.

Held, further, that in a criminal case such as this, where the existence of the company was a material fact which had been placed in issue by the accused's plea of not guilty, the proof thereof which the State had to adduce was contained in the contents of the relevant documents specified above.

Held, further, that, in the present case, the existence of first appellant as a company, and thus as a legal persona, had been placed in issue by the appellants' plea and it had to be proved by the State beyond reasonable doubt. For that purpose the production of the above documents themselves or evidence thereof produced in terms of sections 239 (3) or 64 (2) of the Act was necessary.

Held, therefore, that the evidence of the State witness was inadmissible on that, aspect.

Held, further, that the fact that the witness's allegations had not been attacked in cross-examination and had not been contradicted by the defence evidence, did not amount to an acknowledgement thereof and his hearsay evidence was not thereby rendered admissible. Therefore the appeal had to succeed.

Held, further, that in any case the State had failed to prove certain other relevant facts.

Case Information

Appèl teen skuldigbevindinge in 'n landdroshof. Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak.

B. P. du Plessis, namens die appellants.

C. D. O. Nel, namens die Staat. E

Cur adv vult.

Postea (Junie 9).

1977 (3) SA p980

Judgment

M.T. Steyn, R.:

Die appellante het in 'n landdroshof tereggestaan op sewe aanklagte dat hulle ter oortreding van A art. 53 (1) van die Wet op Nywerheidsversoening, 28 van 1956, gedurende Oktober 1975 versuim het om te voldoen aan besondere...