S v NATHOO SUPERMARKET (PVT) LTD 1987 (2) ZLR 136 (S)

Flynote

Evidence — single witness evidence — test of acceptability.

Statutes — interpretation — patent error in wording of statute — court's power to correct — Control of Goods (Distribution and Disposal of Commodities) Regulations SI 556A/82 — s 5.

Criminal law — statutory offences — prohibition against conditional selling — proviso allowing such selling where goods form "part of same set of commodities" — meaning.

Headnote

In deciding whether to convict on the evidence of a single witness, no magic formula can be applied. The court must approach his evidence with caution and its merits must be weighed against any factors which militate against its credibility. A common sense attitude must be applied. If the court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the sole witness has spoken the truth, it must convict, notwithstanding that he was in some respects unsatisfactory.

The court has the power to correct an obvious drafting or printing error in the wording of a statute. In the proviso to s 5 of the Control of Goods (Distribution and Disposal of Commodities) Regulations in SI 556A/82, the words "that subsection" and "subsection (1)" must be read and interpreted as "this section".

The appellant had been convicted of conditional selling in contravention of s 5 of the Regulations, by refusing to sell a bar of washing soap to a customer except on condition that the customer purchased two bars of toilet soap.

Held, that washing soap and toilet soap do not form "part of the same set of commodities" for the purposes of the exception contained in proviso (b) to s 5, and the appellant was rightly convicted.