Memeza and Others v S (A310/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 27 (14 March 2013)

Memeza and Others v S (A310/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 27 (14 March 2013)

The court found that the magistrate erred in concluding that the strength of the state case could not be assessed before the closure of the state case. Upon review of the evidence, the court determined that the state had a strong case against all appellants in respect of charge 1, and against the first, second, and third appellants in respect of charge 2. The case against the fourth, fifth, and sixth appellants on charge 2 was only prima facie, based on cellular phone evidence, and the case against all appellants on charge 3 was weak due to inadmissibility of key evidence and lack of identification. The court also considered the excessive delay in finalising the trial, which was not...

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 27
Parties
Appellant: Lucky Memeza & Others; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2013
Case Number
A310/2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Bail Appeal Under S 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for the first to fourth appellants; appeal upheld for the fifth and sixth appellants.
Judges
Molemela, Da Rocha-Boltney
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Schedule 6 Offence, Strength of State Case, Delay in Trial, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Schedule 6 Offence Strength of State Case Delay in Trial Onus of Proof

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lucky Memeza & Others

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Bail Appeal Under S 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether new facts presented in the second bail application constitute exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail for the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in finding that the strength of the state case could not be determined before closure of the state case.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in finalisation of the trial constitutes an exceptional circumstance for bail purposes.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate erred in concluding that the strength of the state case could not be assessed before the closure of the state case. Upon review of the evidence, the court determined that the state had a strong case against all appellants in respect of charge 1, and against the first, second, and third appellants in respect of charge 2. The case against the fourth, fifth, and sixth appellants on charge 2 was only prima facie, based on cellular phone evidence, and the case against all appellants on charge 3 was weak due to inadmissibility of key evidence and lack of identification. The court also considered the excessive delay in finalising the trial, which was not...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for the first to fourth appellants; appeal upheld for the fifth and sixth appellants.

Orders

  • The appeal in respect of the first to fourth appellants is dismissed.
  • The appeal in respect of the fifth (Mr David Musimeke) and sixth appellant (Mr Frankson Sifiso Cele) is upheld.