UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA (UNISA)
College of Law
⋄
Law of Evidence
Assignment 2 — Second Semester 2026
⋄
Module Code: FOR2609
Module Name: Law of Evidence
Assignment No.: Assignment 2
Semester: Second Semester 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Law of Evidence
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | FOR2609 Law of Evidence — Assignment 2
Question 2: Matlala’s Trial — Proof, Expert Testimony, Judicial Notice and Opinion Ev-
idence
Mr Matlala’s motor vehicle accident trial raises several distinct but interlinked evidentiary
questions: how proof is regulated by the law of evidence, when a witness may properly testify
as an expert, when a court may dispense with formal proof through judicial notice, when
opinion evidence is admissible, and what it actually means to tender evidence before a court.
Each sub-question below applies the relevant rule to the facts involving Mr Sibiya and Mr
Mkhwanazi.
2.1 The Relationship between Proof and the Law of Evidence
Proof is the process by which a party persuades the court, to the required standard, that a
fact in issue exists or does not exist. The law of evidence is the body of adjectival, or proce-
dural, rules that regulates that process: it determines which facts a court may receive, in what
form, through whom, and with what probative consequence.1 South African evidence law has
no single codifying statute; it is built mainly on the common law, supplemented by statutes
such as the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of
1988, and is now filtered through the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.2
Proof and the law of evidence therefore stand in a means-and-end relationship. Proof is the
object the parties are trying to achieve: in a criminal matter such as Mr Matlala’s, the State
must prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while an accused need only raise a reasonable
doubt or establish a defence on a balance of probabilities where an onus is reversed. The law
of evidence is the mechanism that makes that object achievable in a principled way. It does
this on three levels. First, it governs relevance, since only facts that are logically probative of a
fact in issue may be placed before the court.3 Second, it governs admissibility, since relevant
evidence may still be excluded for policy reasons, for example because it is hearsay, privi-
leged, or unconstitutionally obtained. Third, it governs weight, since even admitted evidence
must be evaluated by the court for its cogency before a finding of fact, and ultimately proof,
can follow.
Without the law of evidence, proof would be an unregulated contest of assertion; without
1
Schwikkard PJ and Van der Merwe SE, Principles of Evidence (4th edn, Juta 2016) ch 1.
2
Zeffertt DT and Paizes AP, The South African Law of Evidence (3rd edn, LexisNexis 2009) 3–5.
3
Theophilopoulos C and Bellengere A, ‘Relevance, Admissibility and Probative Value in a Rational System of
Evidence: A South African Perspective’ (2022) 25 PER/PELJ 1, 3–6.
Page 1 of 11
College of Law
⋄
Law of Evidence
Assignment 2 — Second Semester 2026
⋄
Module Code: FOR2609
Module Name: Law of Evidence
Assignment No.: Assignment 2
Semester: Second Semester 2026
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Law of Evidence
at the University of South Africa.
, UNISA | FOR2609 Law of Evidence — Assignment 2
Question 2: Matlala’s Trial — Proof, Expert Testimony, Judicial Notice and Opinion Ev-
idence
Mr Matlala’s motor vehicle accident trial raises several distinct but interlinked evidentiary
questions: how proof is regulated by the law of evidence, when a witness may properly testify
as an expert, when a court may dispense with formal proof through judicial notice, when
opinion evidence is admissible, and what it actually means to tender evidence before a court.
Each sub-question below applies the relevant rule to the facts involving Mr Sibiya and Mr
Mkhwanazi.
2.1 The Relationship between Proof and the Law of Evidence
Proof is the process by which a party persuades the court, to the required standard, that a
fact in issue exists or does not exist. The law of evidence is the body of adjectival, or proce-
dural, rules that regulates that process: it determines which facts a court may receive, in what
form, through whom, and with what probative consequence.1 South African evidence law has
no single codifying statute; it is built mainly on the common law, supplemented by statutes
such as the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and the Law of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of
1988, and is now filtered through the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.2
Proof and the law of evidence therefore stand in a means-and-end relationship. Proof is the
object the parties are trying to achieve: in a criminal matter such as Mr Matlala’s, the State
must prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, while an accused need only raise a reasonable
doubt or establish a defence on a balance of probabilities where an onus is reversed. The law
of evidence is the mechanism that makes that object achievable in a principled way. It does
this on three levels. First, it governs relevance, since only facts that are logically probative of a
fact in issue may be placed before the court.3 Second, it governs admissibility, since relevant
evidence may still be excluded for policy reasons, for example because it is hearsay, privi-
leged, or unconstitutionally obtained. Third, it governs weight, since even admitted evidence
must be evaluated by the court for its cogency before a finding of fact, and ultimately proof,
can follow.
Without the law of evidence, proof would be an unregulated contest of assertion; without
1
Schwikkard PJ and Van der Merwe SE, Principles of Evidence (4th edn, Juta 2016) ch 1.
2
Zeffertt DT and Paizes AP, The South African Law of Evidence (3rd edn, LexisNexis 2009) 3–5.
3
Theophilopoulos C and Bellengere A, ‘Relevance, Admissibility and Probative Value in a Rational System of
Evidence: A South African Perspective’ (2022) 25 PER/PELJ 1, 3–6.
Page 1 of 11
