Maredi v S (A110/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 53 (26 January 2023)

Maredi v S (A110/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 53 (26 January 2023)

The court found that the magistrate did not misdirect herself in treating the bail application as falling under Schedule 5, as the additional count involving an amount exceeding R500,000 was properly added before the accused pleaded. The appellant, through his legal representative, accepted proceeding under Schedule 5 and did not request a postponement. The new facts advanced by the appellant, including health concerns, family circumstances, and financial hardship, were considered but did not satisfy the court that the interests of justice permitted release. The appellant's history of evading arrest, lack of a fixed address, and the risk of absconding or committing further offences...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 53
Parties
Appellant: Mothiang Kenneth Maredi; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2023
Case Number
A110/2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
Judges
Strydom
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Schedule 5 Offences, Onus of Proof, Condonation, Section 60 Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Schedule 5 Offences Onus of Proof Condonation Section 60 Criminal Procedure Act

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mothiang Kenneth Maredi

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in refusing bail to the appellant on both the original and new facts.
  2. 2 Whether the addition of a further count on the day of the bail hearing rendered the proceedings unfair.
  3. 3 Whether new facts justified reconsideration of bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate did not misdirect herself in treating the bail application as falling under Schedule 5, as the additional count involving an amount exceeding R500,000 was properly added before the accused pleaded. The appellant, through his legal representative, accepted proceeding under Schedule 5 and did not request a postponement. The new facts advanced by the appellant, including health concerns, family circumstances, and financial hardship, were considered but did not satisfy the court that the interests of justice permitted release. The appellant's history of evading arrest, lack of a fixed address, and the risk of absconding or committing further offences...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.

Orders

  • The appeal against the refusal of bail is dismissed.
  • The application for condonation for late filing of the appeal is granted.