Mabaso and Another v The State (A134/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 131 (5 February 2021)

Mabaso and Another v The State (A134/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 131 (5 February 2021)

The court found that the appellants failed to adduce evidence establishing exceptional circumstances as required for bail in schedule 6 offences. The affidavits submitted contained inconsistencies, irrelevancies, and unsupported allegations, and the corroborating witness's affidavit was similarly flawed. The alleged irregularities in the identification parade did not raise a sufficient red flag to undermine the state's case at this stage. The magistrate's decision to grant bail to the third accused was based on weaker evidence against him, and did not necessitate the same finding for the appellants. The magistrate properly considered the appellants' previous convictions and did not...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 131
Parties
Appellant: Nkosinathi Mabaso; Appellant: Ambrose Shakong; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 February 2021
Case Number
A134/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Regional Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
Judges
S Yacoob
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Schedule 6 Offences, Identification Parade, Presumption of Innocence
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Schedule 6 Offences Identification Parade Presumption of Innocence

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nkosinathi Mabaso

Appellant

Ambrose Shakong

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail by Regional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants established exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail for schedule 6 offences.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence adduced by the appellants casts serious doubt on the state's case.
  3. 3 Whether irregularities in the identification parade undermine the state's case.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to adduce evidence establishing exceptional circumstances as required for bail in schedule 6 offences. The affidavits submitted contained inconsistencies, irrelevancies, and unsupported allegations, and the corroborating witness's affidavit was similarly flawed. The alleged irregularities in the identification parade did not raise a sufficient red flag to undermine the state's case at this stage. The magistrate's decision to grant bail to the third accused was based on weaker evidence against him, and did not necessitate the same finding for the appellants. The magistrate properly considered the appellants' previous convictions and did not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.

Orders

  • The appeal against the magistrate's refusal of bail is dismissed.
  • The appellants shall remain in custody pending trial.