S v Kula (CC21/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 165 (3 June 2024)

S v Kula (CC21/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 165 (3 June 2024)

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the accused breached bail conditions by communicating with his minor children and state witnesses, and by failing to report to the police station and leaving the magisterial district without permission. The evidence of MM and the corroborating video footage established that the accused had direct contact with his children and state witnesses, contrary to the prohibitory bail conditions. The accused's denials were found to be bare and improbable, and his conduct demonstrated fault. The breaches were serious and gross, justifying the cancellation of bail and forfeiture of the bail amount in terms of section 66 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Citation
[2024] ZANWHC 165
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Sibusiso Macdonald Kula
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 June 2024
Case Number
CC21/2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law / Application for Cancellation of Bail During Ongoing Murder Trial
Outcome
Bail cancelled and bail money forfeited to the State; accused remanded in custody.
Judges
Petersen
Legal Topics
Bail Cancellation, Breach of Bail Conditions, Interference With Witnesses, Forfeiture of Bail, Criminal Procedure Act
Criminal Law Bail Cancellation Breach of Bail Conditions Interference With Witnesses Forfeiture of Bail Criminal Procedure Act

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Sibusiso Macdonald Kula

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law / Application for Cancellation of Bail During Ongoing Murder Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused breached bail conditions by communicating with his minor children and state witnesses.
  2. 2 Whether the accused failed to report to the police station and left the magisterial district without permission.
  3. 3 Whether the breaches were due to fault on the part of the accused, justifying cancellation of bail and forfeiture of bail money.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the accused breached bail conditions by communicating with his minor children and state witnesses, and by failing to report to the police station and leaving the magisterial district without permission. The evidence of MM and the corroborating video footage established that the accused had direct contact with his children and state witnesses, contrary to the prohibitory bail conditions. The accused's denials were found to be bare and improbable, and his conduct demonstrated fault. The breaches were serious and gross, justifying the cancellation of bail and forfeiture of the bail amount in terms of section 66 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Court Disposition

Bail cancelled and bail money forfeited to the State; accused remanded in custody.

Orders

  • The bail of the accused is cancelled.
  • The bail amount of R50,000 paid is forfeited to the State.