Ntoni and Others v S (5646/2018P) [2018] ZAKZPHC 26 (21 June 2018)

Ntoni and Others v S (5646/2018P) [2018] ZAKZPHC 26 (21 June 2018)

The court found that the magistrate correctly applied the law and did not misdirect himself in refusing bail. The appellants failed to discharge the onus required by section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act, either to show exceptional circumstances (first appellant) or that the interests of justice permit release (second and third appellants). The affidavits of the appellants were bare denials and did not address the serious allegations in the investigating officer's affidavit, including fleeing from police, possession of unlicensed firearms, and attempted murder. The court weighed the appellants' personal circumstances against the interests of justice and the strength of the State's...

Citation
[2018] ZAKZPHC 26
Parties
Appellant: David Nyakalo Ntoni; Appellant: Muziwandile Floyd Xaba; Appellant: Sandile Lungisani Xaba; Respondent: The State
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2018
Case Number
5646/2018P
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Bail refused.
Judges
Henriques
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Schedule 5 Offences, Schedule 6 Offences, Onus of Proof, Flight Risk
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Schedule 5 Offences Schedule 6 Offences Onus of Proof Flight Risk

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Nyakalo Ntoni

Appellant

Muziwandile Floyd Xaba

Appellant

Sandile Lungisani Xaba

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 appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants discharged the onus to show exceptional circumstances (first appellant) or that the interests of justice permit release (second and third appellants).
  3. 3 Whether the personal circumstances of the appellants and the strength of the State's case justified bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate correctly applied the law and did not misdirect himself in refusing bail. The appellants failed to discharge the onus required by section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Act, either to show exceptional circumstances (first appellant) or that the interests of justice permit release (second and third appellants). The affidavits of the appellants were bare denials and did not address the serious allegations in the investigating officer's affidavit, including fleeing from police, possession of unlicensed firearms, and attempted murder. The court weighed the appellants' personal circumstances against the interests of justice and the strength of the State's...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Bail refused.

Orders

  • The appellants’ appeal against the refusal to admit them to bail is dismissed.