Khanyile and Others v S (1721/2017P) [2017] ZAKZPHC 27 (9 March 2017)

Khanyile and Others v S (1721/2017P) [2017] ZAKZPHC 27 (9 March 2017)

The court held that none of the factors advanced by the appellants, whether individually or collectively, constituted exceptional circumstances as required by section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The seriousness of the charges, the strength of the State's case, the degree of violence involved, and the risk of interference with witnesses or evasion of trial outweighed the appellants' personal and medical circumstances. The court found no misdirection by the magistrate and concluded that the interests of justice did not permit the release of the appellants on bail. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZAKZPHC 27
Parties
Appellant: Joseph Zamokwakhe Khanyile; Appellant: Mandla Border Khumalo; Appellant: Doris Jabulile Dladla/Zaca; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2017
Case Number
1721/2017P
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
Appeal against refusal of bail dismissed.
Judges
Lopes
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Right to Personal Freedom, Onus of Proof, Schedule 6 Offences
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Right to Personal Freedom Onus of Proof Schedule 6 Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Zamokwakhe Khanyile

Appellant

Mandla Border Khumalo

Appellant

Doris Jabulile Dladla/Zaca

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants established exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail under section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in refusing bail to the appellants.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants' personal circumstances and medical conditions constitute exceptional circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that none of the factors advanced by the appellants, whether individually or collectively, constituted exceptional circumstances as required by section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The seriousness of the charges, the strength of the State's case, the degree of violence involved, and the risk of interference with witnesses or evasion of trial outweighed the appellants' personal and medical circumstances. The court found no misdirection by the magistrate and concluded that the interests of justice did not permit the release of the appellants on bail. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal against refusal of bail dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeals of the three appellants against the refusal of bail by the learned magistrate in the Regional Court at Greytown are refused.