Ngwenya and Another v S (CC22/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 146 (20 June 2024)

Ngwenya and Another v S (CC22/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 146 (20 June 2024)

The court found that the charges against the accused are extremely serious, falling under Schedule 6, and that the State's case is strong, supported by identification parades and cellphone evidence placing the accused at the scene. The applicants' claims that no identification parade was held were contradicted by credible oral evidence from the investigating officer, which was tested under cross-examination and given greater weight than the applicants' affidavits. Although the investigation is complete, the seriousness of the charges and the availability of the witness list create a real risk of witness intimidation if bail is granted. The applicants failed to establish exceptional...

Citation
[2024] ZANWHC 146
Parties
Applicant: Thapelo Ngwenya; Applicant: Sifiso Sydney Maseko; Respondent: State
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2024
Case Number
CC22/2023
Procedural Posture
Bail Application / Application for Bail for Accused 1 and 2
Outcome
Bail is refused for accused 1 and 2.
Judges
FMM Reid
Legal Topics
Bail Proceedings, Schedule 6 Offences, Murder, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances, Unlawful Possession of Firearm, Organised Crime
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Proceedings Schedule 6 Offences Murder Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances Unlawful Possession of Firearm Organised Crime

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thapelo Ngwenya

Applicant

Sifiso Sydney Maseko

Applicant

State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bail Application / Application for Bail for Accused 1 and 2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is in the interest of justice to grant bail to accused 1 and 2 facing Schedule 6 offences.
  2. 2 Whether the accused have established exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail.
  3. 3 Whether the strength of the State's case and risk of interference with witnesses preclude bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the charges against the accused are extremely serious, falling under Schedule 6, and that the State's case is strong, supported by identification parades and cellphone evidence placing the accused at the scene. The applicants' claims that no identification parade was held were contradicted by credible oral evidence from the investigating officer, which was tested under cross-examination and given greater weight than the applicants' affidavits. Although the investigation is complete, the seriousness of the charges and the availability of the witness list create a real risk of witness intimidation if bail is granted. The applicants failed to establish exceptional...

Court Disposition

Bail is refused for accused 1 and 2.

Orders

  • Bail is refused for accused 1 and 2.