S v Whitehead and Others (CA&R 2/2005) [2006] ZANCHC 105 (12 September 2006)

S v Whitehead and Others (CA&R 2/2005) [2006] ZANCHC 105 (12 September 2006)

The High Court held that it sat as a court of first instance in refusing the extension of bail pending appeal, not as a court of second instance. Therefore, in terms of S v Botha and Another, the applicants were entitled to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the refusal of bail without the need for leave from the High Court. The court found that there was no statutory authority for it to entertain the application for leave to appeal in these circumstances. Furthermore, due to procedural confusion and pending processes in the Supreme Court of Appeal, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to consider the merits of the application for leave to appeal. The only...

Citation
[2006] ZANCHC 105
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 2/2005
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
Leave to Appeal Against Bail Refusal, Bail Pending Appeal, Jurisdiction of High Court, Procedural Confusion, Condonation
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Against Bail Refusal Bail Pending Appeal Jurisdiction of High Court Procedural Confusion Condonation

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 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 the High Court to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against refusal of bail pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court sat as a court of first or second instance in refusing extension of bail.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal should be entertained given procedural confusion and pending processes in the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that it sat as a court of first instance in refusing the extension of bail pending appeal, not as a court of second instance. Therefore, in terms of S v Botha and Another, the applicants were entitled to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the refusal of bail without the need for leave from the High Court. The court found that there was no statutory authority for it to entertain the application for leave to appeal in these circumstances. Furthermore, due to procedural confusion and pending processes in the Supreme Court of Appeal, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to consider the merits of the application for leave to appeal. The only...

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.