Olantunji v S (A200/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 51 (27 January 2020)

Olantunji v S (A200/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 51 (27 January 2020)

The Court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of showing that it was in the interests of justice to be released on bail. The appellant lacked sufficient ties to the Republic, had no assets in his name, and presented multiple passports, including one bearing his photograph but different details. The evidence indicated a propensity to commit similar crimes and a flight risk. The court a quo correctly attached weight to the J50 warrant and the strength of the State's case. The explanations offered by the appellant's counsel were either unsupported by the record or amounted to new evidence from the bar. The Court was not persuaded that the lower court erred or misdirected...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 51
Parties
Appellant: Olantunji, Samson Abdul; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 January 2020
Case Number
A200/2019
Procedural Posture
Bail Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
The appeal against refusal of bail is dismissed. Costs are awarded against the appellant.
Judges
S C Mia
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Flight Risk, Propensity to Commit Crime, Criminal Procedure Act Section 65, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Flight Risk Propensity to Commit Crime Criminal Procedure Act Section 65 Admissibility of Evidence

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Olantunji, Samson Abdul

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Bail Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo erred in refusing bail to the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is a flight risk and has a propensity to commit similar crimes.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence relied upon by the court a quo was admissible in bail proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the appellant failed to discharge the onus of showing that it was in the interests of justice to be released on bail. The appellant lacked sufficient ties to the Republic, had no assets in his name, and presented multiple passports, including one bearing his photograph but different details. The evidence indicated a propensity to commit similar crimes and a flight risk. The court a quo correctly attached weight to the J50 warrant and the strength of the State's case. The explanations offered by the appellant's counsel were either unsupported by the record or amounted to new evidence from the bar. The Court was not persuaded that the lower court erred or misdirected...

Court Disposition

The appeal against refusal of bail is dismissed. Costs are awarded against the appellant.

Orders

  • The appellant's application for bail on appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant shall pay the costs of this application.