S v Mulandi (HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 113 of 2020) [2021] NAHCMD 136 (29 March 2021)
The appellant was not truthful regarding his place of residence, failed to discharge the onus of proving he is a good candidate for bail, and there was no misdirection by the magistrate. The seriousness of the offence, risk of absconding, and public interest justified refusal of bail.
- Citation
- [2021] NAHCMD 136
- Parties
- Appellant: Jack Mulandi; Respondent: The State
- Court
- High Court Main Division
- Jurisdiction
- Namibia
- Judgment Date
- 29 March 2021
- Case Number
- HC-MD-CRI-APP-CAL 113 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Bail Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Bail, Refugee Status, Rape, Indecent Assault, Judicial Discretion, Appeal Procedure
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jack Mulandi
Appellant
The State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Bail Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the magistrate erred in refusing bail to the appellant
- 2 Whether the appellant proved on a balance of probabilities that he is a good candidate for bail
- 3 Whether the appellant was truthful regarding his place of residence
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant was not truthful regarding his place of residence, failed to discharge the onus of proving he is a good candidate for bail, and there was no misdirection by the magistrate. The seriousness of the offence, risk of absconding, and public interest justified refusal of bail.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment