Danisa and v S (A395/2015) [2015] ZAGPJHC 311 (11 December 2015)
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPJHC 311
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- G. T. Avvakoumides
- Case number
- A395/2015
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- G. T. Avvakoumides
- Case number
- A395/2015
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found no misdirection in the magistrate's reasoning and agreed that the alleged new facts did not constitute genuine new facts. The evidence against the appellants, including positive identification, ballistic evidence, and a confession, was sufficient to justify the refusal of bail. The appellants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, and the interests of justice did not favour their release. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
Orders
- The appeal against the refusal of bail is dismissed.
- The appellants are to remain in custody pending trial.
02
Material facts
Parties
Quinselihle Eric Danisa
Appellant Counsel: J. J. H. HuysamenMaphutha Hendrick Danisa
Appellant Counsel: J. J. H. HuysamenThe State
Respondent Counsel: A. D. Maharaj03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the appellants demonstrated exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail.
- 02
Whether it is in the interests of justice to grant bail to the appellants.
- 03
Whether the magistrate erred in refusing bail based on the evidence and new facts presented.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellants argued that new facts had arisen since the initial bail application and that these facts, together with the circumstances of their case, constituted exceptional circumstances warranting their release on bail. They contended that the interests of justice favoured their release and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence against them, including the identification and confession relied upon by the State.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintained that no exceptional circumstances had been established by the appellants and that the so-called new facts were not genuinely new. The State relied on positive identification by a witness, ballistic evidence, and a confession, arguing that these factors justified continued detention and that releasing the appellants would not be in the interests of justice.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Section 60(11)(a) of Act 51 of 1977
An accused charged with a Schedule 6 offence must show exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail and that it is in the interests of justice to do so.
- 02
S v De Kock 1995 (1) SACR 299 (T)
An appellate court will not interfere with the lower court's decision unless satisfied that the decision was wrong.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found no misdirection in the magistrate's reasoning and agreed that the alleged new facts did not constitute genuine new facts. The evidence against the appellants, including positive identification, ballistic evidence, and a confession, was sufficient to justify the refusal of bail. The appellants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances, and the interests of justice did not favour their release. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Obiter and limits
- The court emphasised the importance of evaluating new facts in bail applications critically and not accepting them at face value.
- The interests of justice remain paramount in bail proceedings, especially in serious offences such as murder.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
- The appeal against the refusal of bail is dismissed.
- The appellants are to remain in custody pending trial.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NUMBER: A395/2015
DATE OF HEARING: 10 DECEMBER 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11 DECEMBER 2015
In the matter between:
DANISA, QUINSELIHLE ERIC...................................................................................First Appellant
DANISA, MAPHUTHA HENDRICK........................................................................Second Appellant
And
THE STATE............................................................................................................................Respondent
J U D G M E N T
AVVAKOUMIDES, AJ
[1] This is an appeal against the decision of the magistrate sitting in the Protea Magistrates Court, not to release the two Appellants on bail pending their trial. The Appellants were arrested on 7 and 8 August 2015 respectively. An application for bail was brought and refused and a further application based on new facts was equally unsuccessful.
[2] The charges against the Appellants are the following:
• Murder read with section 51 (1) of Act 105 of 1997.
• Unlawful possession of firearms a contravention of section 3 of Act 60 of 2000.
• Unlawful possession of firearms a contravention of section 90 of Act 60 of 2000.
[3] It is settled law that the Appellants have to show exceptional circumstances in order to be released on bail and that it is in the interests of justice that the Appellants be released on bail. See: section 60 (11) (a) of Act 51 of 1977 and S v De Kock 1995 (1) SACR 299 (T). It is equally so that a court sitting on appeal shall not set aside the decision against which the appeal is brought unless the court of appeal is satisfied that the decision was wrong.
[4] I have had regard to the judgment of the magistrate and can find no misdirection in his reasoning when refusing bail. Moreover, the so called “new facts” upon which the second application for bail was based, were held not to have been new facts. I can find no exceptional circumstances which compel me to release the Appellants on bail and in my view it would not be in the interest of justice to do so. The court correctly evaluated the circumstances relating to the positive identification of the two Appellants by a witness, ballistic evidence and a confession which is relied upon by the State. I am not persuaded that it is in the interests of justice to release the Appellants on bail.
[5] In the premises the appeal is dismissed.
G. T. AVVAKOUMIDES
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Representation for Appellant:
Counsel: J. J. H. Huysamen
Instructed by: R. S. Madzivhandila Attorneys
Representation for the Respondent:
Counsel: A. D. Maharaj
Instructed by: Director of Public Prosecutions
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.