Moiloa and Others v S (A139/11) [2011] ZAFSHC 115 (7 July 2011)

Moiloa and Others v S (A139/11) [2011] ZAFSHC 115 (7 July 2011)

The High Court found that the Regional Court erred in law and fact by misapplying the statutory onus, treating all appellants as if charged with Schedule 5 offences, and failing to distinguish between those charged with murder and those charged with assault. The State did not discharge its burden to establish exceptional circumstances or the likelihood of public disorder under section 60(4)(e) and 60(8A) for the majority of appellants. The evidence relied upon by the Magistrate was tainted by bias and failed to substantiate claims of brutality or community outrage directly linked to the accused. The Magistrate overemphasised irrelevant factors such as general service delivery...

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 115
Parties
Appellant: N.I. Moiloa; Appellant: M.L. Ntaje; Appellant: M. Maqane; Appellant: O.E. Mphirime; Appellant: T.S. Moeketsi; Appellant: J.M. Skosana; Appellant: M.I. Finger; Appellant: K. Munsamy; Respondent: The State
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 July 2011
Case Number
A139/11
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Bail Appeal From Refusal in Regional Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; bail granted to all appellants.
Judges
Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Onus of Proof, Exceptional Circumstances, Public Order, Prejudice to Accused
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Onus of Proof Exceptional Circumstances Public Order Prejudice to Accused

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N.I. Moiloa

Appellant

M.L. Ntaje

Appellant

M. Maqane

Appellant

O.E. Mphirime

Appellant

T.S. Moeketsi

Appellant

J.M. Skosana

Appellant

M.I. Finger

Appellant

K. Munsamy

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Bail Appeal From Refusal in Regional Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal of bail by the Regional Court was correct in law and fact.
  2. 2 Whether the correct statutory onus was applied to each appellant under the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances existed justifying continued detention under section 60(4)(e) and 60(8A) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the Regional Court erred in law and fact by misapplying the statutory onus, treating all appellants as if charged with Schedule 5 offences, and failing to distinguish between those charged with murder and those charged with assault. The State did not discharge its burden to establish exceptional circumstances or the likelihood of public disorder under section 60(4)(e) and 60(8A) for the majority of appellants. The evidence relied upon by the Magistrate was tainted by bias and failed to substantiate claims of brutality or community outrage directly linked to the accused. The Magistrate overemphasised irrelevant factors such as general service delivery...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; bail granted to all appellants.

Orders

  • The appeal against the refusal of bail is upheld and the order of the Regional Court is set aside.
  • Bail is granted to each appellant in the amount of R1,000.00.