Comparison View

Formal Consolidation |  1997 RevEd
Opinions of experts
47.—(1)  When the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to the identity or genuineness of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to the identity or genuineness of handwriting or finger impressions, are relevant facts.
(2)  Such persons are called experts.
Illustration

    (a)  The question is whether the death of A was caused by poison.

The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced by the poison by which A is supposed to have died are relevant.

    (b)  The question is whether A, at the time of doing a certain act, was by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.

The opinions of experts upon the question whether symptoms exhibited by A commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which they do or of knowing that what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are relevant.

    (c)  The question is whether a certain document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or admitted to have been written by A.

The opinions of experts on the question whether the 2 documents were written by the same person or by different persons are relevant.
Informal Consolidation | Amended Act 4 of 2012
Opinions of experts
47.—(1)  Subject to subsection (4)subsection (4), when the court is likely to derive assistance from an opinion upon a point of scientific, technical or other specialised knowledge, the opinions of experts upon that point are relevant facts.
(2)  An expert is a person with such scientific, technical or other specialised knowledge based on training, study or experience.
(3)  The opinion of an expert shall not be irrelevant merely because the opinion or part thereof relates to a matter of common knowledge.
(4)  An opinion which is otherwise relevant under subsection (1)subsection (1) shall not be relevant if the court is of the view that it would not be in the interests of justice to treat it as relevant.
[Act 4 of 2012 wef 01/08/2012]