Sekobelo v Nemavhadi and Another (35208/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 445 (12 September 2017)

Sekobelo v Nemavhadi and Another (35208/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 445 (12 September 2017)

The court found that there was no conduct or utterance by the first respondent that could objectively justify an inference or reasonable apprehension of bias or partiality against the applicant. The first respondent maintained judicial impartiality and properly advised the applicant regarding self-representation. The absence of reasons for refusing the discharge under section 174 did not constitute a reviewable irregularity, as reasons are customarily given at the end of the trial. The applicant was offered assistance in subpoenaing witnesses, and there was no duty on the first respondent to secure their attendance. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 445
Parties
Applicant: Phillip Mmapitsi Sekobelo; Respondent: Mr Nemavhidi; Respondent: The State: as represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2017
Case Number
35208/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Review and Setting Aside of Refusal to Recuse in Pending Criminal Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
FHD Van Oosten, BL Makola
Legal Topics
Recusal of Judicial Officer, Review of Procedural Rulings, Criminal Trial Procedure, Judicial Impartiality
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Recusal of Judicial Officer Review of Procedural Rulings Criminal Trial Procedure Judicial Impartiality

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

Phillip Mmapitsi Sekobelo

Applicant

Mr Nemavhidi

Respondent

The State: as represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Review and Setting Aside of Refusal to Recuse in Pending Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent's refusal to recuse himself as presiding officer in the criminal trial was reviewable.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct or utterances of the first respondent gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias or partiality.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of reasons for refusing the applicant's discharge under section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act constituted reviewable irregularity.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no conduct or utterance by the first respondent that could objectively justify an inference or reasonable apprehension of bias or partiality against the applicant. The first respondent maintained judicial impartiality and properly advised the applicant regarding self-representation. The absence of reasons for refusing the discharge under section 174 did not constitute a reviewable irregularity, as reasons are customarily given at the end of the trial. The applicant was offered assistance in subpoenaing witnesses, and there was no duty on the first respondent to secure their attendance. The application for review was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.