S v Whitehead and Others (CA & R 02/2006) [2006] ZANCHC 44 (12 September 2006)

S v Whitehead and Others (CA & R 02/2006) [2006] ZANCHC 44 (12 September 2006)

The court held that it sat as a court of first instance when refusing the extension of bail pending appeal, not as a court of second instance. Accordingly, in terms of S v Botha and Others, the applicants were entitled to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the refusal of bail without the need for leave from this court. The statutory framework does not empower this court to grant leave to appeal in these circumstances. Furthermore, due to substantial confusion regarding the status of the various applications and appeals before the Supreme Court of Appeal, it would be inappropriate and impractical for this court to consider the merits of the application for leave to...

Citation
[2006] ZANCHC 44
Parties
Appellant: Alexander George Whitehead; Appellant: Arend Christiaan de Waal; Appellant: Gerhardus Johannes Taljaart; Appellant: Louis George Rademeyer; Appellant: Willem Jacobus Petrus Jacobs; Appellant: Hans Jacob Wessels; Appellant: Reyno Adriaan Rossouw; Appellant: Ryan Albutt; Respondent: The State
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2006
Case Number
CA & R 02/2006
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Bail Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal against refusal of bail is struck from the roll.
Judges
C J Olivier, S A Majiedt
Legal Topics
Bail Pending Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction of High Court, Condonation, Procedural Confusion
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Pending Appeal Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction of High Court Condonation Procedural Confusion

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexander George Whitehead

Appellant

Arend Christiaan de Waal

Appellant

Gerhardus Johannes Taljaart

Appellant

Louis George Rademeyer

Appellant

Willem Jacobus Petrus Jacobs

Appellant

Hans Jacob Wessels

Appellant

Reyno Adriaan Rossouw

Appellant

Ryan Albutt

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Refusal of Bail Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants require leave from this court to appeal the refusal of bail pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether this court acted as a court of first or second instance in refusing bail.
  3. 3 Whether the confusion regarding the status of applications before the Supreme Court of Appeal precludes consideration of the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it sat as a court of first instance when refusing the extension of bail pending appeal, not as a court of second instance. Accordingly, in terms of S v Botha and Others, the applicants were entitled to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the refusal of bail without the need for leave from this court. The statutory framework does not empower this court to grant leave to appeal in these circumstances. Furthermore, due to substantial confusion regarding the status of the various applications and appeals before the Supreme Court of Appeal, it would be inappropriate and impractical for this court to consider the merits of the application for leave to...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal against refusal of bail is struck from the roll.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal against the refusal of bail is struck from the roll.