Skhosana v S (BA16/2020) [2020] ZAMPMHC 10 (27 May 2020)

Skhosana v S (BA16/2020) [2020] ZAMPMHC 10 (27 May 2020)

The court found that the alleged alibi was not new evidence, as it was known to the appellant at the time of the first bail application and no satisfactory explanation was provided for its omission. The magistrate correctly allowed the appellant to testify to determine whether the evidence was new, but found it was not. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving exceptional circumstances required for bail under Schedule 6. The appeal was a disguised attempt to reargue the initial application without presenting genuinely new facts. The magistrate's discretion was properly exercised and there was no basis for interference on appeal.

Citation
[2020] ZAMPMHC 10
Parties
Appellant: Tshepo Collen Skhosana; Respondent: The State
Court
Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2020
Case Number
BA 16/2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.
Judges
Brauckmann
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, New Facts on Appeal, Onus of Proof
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances New Facts on Appeal Onus of Proof

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshepo Collen Skhosana

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant established exceptional circumstances justifying release on bail under Schedule 6 offences.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged alibi constituted new facts for purposes of a renewed bail application.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate exercised her discretion incorrectly in refusing bail.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the alleged alibi was not new evidence, as it was known to the appellant at the time of the first bail application and no satisfactory explanation was provided for its omission. The magistrate correctly allowed the appellant to testify to determine whether the evidence was new, but found it was not. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving exceptional circumstances required for bail under Schedule 6. The appeal was a disguised attempt to reargue the initial application without presenting genuinely new facts. The magistrate's discretion was properly exercised and there was no basis for interference on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; bail remains refused.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.