Twala and Others v S (A188/2009) [2009] ZAGPJHC 122 (30 April 2009)

Twala and Others v S (A188/2009) [2009] ZAGPJHC 122 (30 April 2009)

The court found that the evidence presented by the State was vague, unspecific, and largely hearsay, failing to establish the jurisdictional facts required for the application of section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The lower court was not in a position to form even a prima facie view of the strength of the State's case, and the appellants should have received the benefit of the doubt. The likelihood of interference with State witnesses was not established, and suitable bail conditions could adequately protect the witnesses. The appellants established exceptional circumstances permitting their release in the interests of justice. Remitting the matter would unfairly allow the...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPJHC 122
Parties
Appellant: Victor Tshepo Twala; Appellant: Lebogang Ignatius Motsoane; Appellant: Thapelo Clifford Mogoshi; Appellant: Patrick Sithole; Respondent: The State
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 April 2009
Case Number
A188/2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Bail Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; bail granted to first and third appellants.
Judges
P.A. Meyer
Legal Topics
Bail Application, Exceptional Circumstances, Hearsay Evidence, Jurisdictional Fact, Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Bail Application Exceptional Circumstances Hearsay Evidence Jurisdictional Fact Robbery With Aggravating Circumstances

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor Tshepo Twala

Appellant

Lebogang Ignatius Motsoane

Appellant

Thapelo Clifford Mogoshi

Appellant

Patrick Sithole

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Bail Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lower court erred in refusing bail to the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the State established the jurisdictional facts required for the application of section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence presented by the State was sufficient to rebut the appellants' denials of involvement in the offence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence presented by the State was vague, unspecific, and largely hearsay, failing to establish the jurisdictional facts required for the application of section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The lower court was not in a position to form even a prima facie view of the strength of the State's case, and the appellants should have received the benefit of the doubt. The likelihood of interference with State witnesses was not established, and suitable bail conditions could adequately protect the witnesses. The appellants established exceptional circumstances permitting their release in the interests of justice. Remitting the matter would unfairly allow the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; bail granted to first and third appellants.

Orders

  • The bail appeals of the first and third appellants succeed.
  • The order refusing bail is set aside and replaced.