Rolf v Cupido and Another (714/2024; SH 61/2021) [2025] ZAMPMHC 18 (27 January 2025)

Rolf v Cupido and Another (714/2024; SH 61/2021) [2025] ZAMPMHC 18 (27 January 2025)

The court found that while the magistrate's refusal to postpone the trial for the applicant to obtain the transcribed record and prepare expert evidence was irregular, it did not amount to bias or justify recusal. The applicant failed to establish reasonable grounds for apprehension of bias, either from the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZAMPMHC 18
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Adriaan Rolf; Respondent: Mr Graham Cupido, Acting Regional Court Magistrate, Secunda; Respondent: The Director of Prosecutions, Mbombela
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 January 2025
Case Number
714/2024; SH 61/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Part B: Review of Magistrate's Refusal to Recuse Himself
Outcome
Application to review and set aside the magistrate's refusal to recuse himself is dismissed; refusal to postpone for transcribed record and consultation is set aside; trial to proceed before the magistrate; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
MBG Langa
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judicial Officer, Judicial Bias, Postponement of Trial, Sexual Offences Act, Condonation Application
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Recusal of Judicial Officer Judicial Bias Postponement of Trial Sexual Offences Act Condonation Application

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Adriaan Rolf

Applicant

Mr Graham Cupido, Acting Regional Court Magistrate, Secunda

Respondent

The Director of Prosecutions, Mbombela

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Part B: Review of Magistrate's Refusal to Recuse Himself

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate's refusal to recuse himself from the applicant's criminal trial constitutes reviewable bias.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to postpone the trial for preparation of expert evidence and to obtain the transcribed record was irregular and prejudicial.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's concurrent practice as an attorney disqualified him from presiding over the matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the magistrate's refusal to postpone the trial for the applicant to obtain the transcribed record and prepare expert evidence was irregular, it did not amount to bias or justify recusal. The applicant failed to establish reasonable grounds for apprehension of bias, either from the magistrate's conduct in court or his private legal practice. The administrative pressures and the magistrate's statements regarding finalising part-heard matters were not sufficient to demonstrate actual or perceived bias. The court granted condonation for the late filing of the supplementary answering affidavit, finding the explanation reasonable in the circumstances and in the...

Court Disposition

Application to review and set aside the magistrate's refusal to recuse himself is dismissed; refusal to postpone for transcribed record and consultation is set aside; trial to proceed before the magistrate; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The application to review and set aside the magistrate's refusal to recuse himself is dismissed.
  • The decision by the magistrate refusing postponement for obtaining the transcribed record and consultation is set aside.