S v Makola (220/94) [1994] ZASCA 68 (20 May 1994)

S v Makola (220/94) [1994] ZASCA 68 (20 May 1994)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 60(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act gives both the lower and superior courts jurisdiction to entertain bail applications at any stage, provided proceedings are pending in the relevant court. At the time of the first bail application, proceedings were not yet pending in the superior court, so no election was made by the appellant. Once proceedings were pending in the Witwatersrand Local Division, the appellant was entitled to bring a new bail application before that court. Section 65(2) does not preclude fresh bail applications in the superior court; it only governs appeals on new facts. The legislature did not intend to bar accused persons...

Citation
[1994] ZASCA 68
Parties
Appellant: Vusi Zacharia Makola; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 1994
Case Number
220/94
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail; Jurisdictional Challenge
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration of bail application.
Judges
F H Grosskopf, Van Heerden, E M Grosskopf, Smalberger, Harms
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Jurisdiction of Superior Court, Criminal Procedure Act, Renewal of Bail Application
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Jurisdiction of Superior Court Criminal Procedure Act Renewal of Bail Application

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vusi Zacharia Makola

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail; Jurisdictional Challenge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Witwatersrand Local Division had jurisdiction to entertain a second bail application after the first was refused in the magistrate's court.
  2. 2 Whether section 60(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act permits a second bail application in the superior court where proceedings are pending.
  3. 3 Whether section 65(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act requires renewal of bail applications only before the magistrate's court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 60(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act gives both the lower and superior courts jurisdiction to entertain bail applications at any stage, provided proceedings are pending in the relevant court. At the time of the first bail application, proceedings were not yet pending in the superior court, so no election was made by the appellant. Once proceedings were pending in the Witwatersrand Local Division, the appellant was entitled to bring a new bail application before that court. Section 65(2) does not preclude fresh bail applications in the superior court; it only governs appeals on new facts. The legislature did not intend to bar accused persons...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the court a quo set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration of bail application.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The order made by the court a quo is set aside.