Section 22 of the Civil Evidence Act (Cap 8:01) defines expert opinion as the opinion of a person who is an expert on any subject, that is to say, of a person who possesses special knowledge or skill in the subject. It further provides that the evidence of an expert shall be admissible in civil proceedings to prove any fact relating to that subject which is relevant to an issue in court proceedings.
Expert opinion evidence is admitted to assist the court to reach a just decision by guiding the court and clarifying issues not within the court’s general knowledge. (See Ndzombane v The State SC77/14).
An expert must establish their credentials, training, and experience especially when their credentials are challenged in court proceedings. (The State v Makuni HH-75-84)
In Mandy v Protea Assurance Co. Ltd 1976 (1) SA 565 at p. 569 it was stated that it was not the mere opinion of the expert witness which is decisive but his or her ability to satisfy the court that, because of the special skill, training and experience, the reasons for the opinion expressed are acceptable.
The court is not expected to accept the opinion of an expert on an issue with its eyes closed, rather it should appeal to its own analysis in making the final decision on an issue under consideration. This was underscored in Ndzombane v The State (supra) in the following words;
“However, in the final analysis, the court itself must draw its own conclusions from the expert opinion and must not be overawed by the proffered opinion, and simply adopt it without questioning or testing it against known parameters.”
The admissibility of expert evidence depends on its relevance on the issue at hand. Any expert opinion which is expressed on an issue which the court can decide without receiving expert opinion is in principle inadmissible because of its irrelevance. Expert testimony, like all other evidence, must be given only appropriate weight. It must be as influential in the overall decision-making process as it deserves: no more, no less. The weight to be given to expert evidence will derive from how that evidence is assessed in the context of all other evidence. This is because, while expert evidence is important evidence, it is nevertheless merely part of the evidence which a court has to take into account. Hence expert evidence should be tested against known facts, as it is the primary factual evidence which is of the greatest importance. It is therefore necessary to ensure that expert evidence is not elevated into a fixed framework or formula, against which actions are then to be rigidly judged with a mathematical precision. (See Itai Motsi v The State HH 185/15)
Common areas which usually require expert evidence in a court of law include; medical/forensic with medical practitioners providing opinions on injuries, treatment, or causes of death etc; ballistics/forensic science with trained experts providing technical evidence on weapons or materials; psychiatric with psychiatrists providing evidence regarding a person’s mental state and documentary/handwriting with handwriting experts providing opinion on the authenticity of a document.
The contents of this article are for general information purposes only and do not constitute our legal or professional advice. We accept no responsibility for any loss or damage of whatsoever nature which may arise from reliance on any of the information published herein.
Copyright © Marume & Furidzo Legal Practitioners 2026