S v Regional Court President and Another (M 475/2019) [2020] ZANWHC 80 (22 October 2020)

S v Regional Court President and Another (M 475/2019) [2020] ZANWHC 80 (22 October 2020)

The High Court held that the Regional Magistrate was correct in her ruling that she, as a magistrate, was not empowered to order that the trial should start de novo before another magistrate. The recusal of the Regional Magistrate was justified due to the perception or apprehension of bias, which was sufficient to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZANWHC 80
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: The Regional Court President; Respondent: Jessy Rakoma
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 October 2020
Case Number
M 475/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment on Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed. The recusal of the Regional Magistrate is confirmed. The trial should start de novo before another Regional Magistrate other than Ms. Juries.
Judges
R D Hendricks, H Scholtz
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judicial Officer, Review of Magistrate Decision, Fair Trial Rights, De Novo Trial
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Recusal of Judicial Officer Review of Magistrate Decision Fair Trial Rights De Novo Trial

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

The Regional Court President

Respondent

Jessy Rakoma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment on Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a Regional Magistrate is empowered to order that a trial should start de novo before another magistrate.
  2. 2 Whether the recusal of the Regional Magistrate was justified in law and fact.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court should set aside the Regional Magistrate's recusal and order her to continue with the trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the Regional Magistrate was correct in her ruling that she, as a magistrate, was not empowered to order that the trial should start de novo before another magistrate. The recusal of the Regional Magistrate was justified due to the perception or apprehension of bias, which was sufficient to warrant recusal in the interest of justice, even though the formal application for recusal was abandoned. The consequence of the recusal is that the trial must start de novo before another Regional Magistrate. The application by the State to set aside the recusal and order the magistrate to continue with the trial was dismissed, as the right to a fair trial for the accused...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. The recusal of the Regional Magistrate is confirmed. The trial should start de novo before another Regional Magistrate other than Ms. Juries.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The recusal of Regional Magistrate Ms Juries is confirmed.