South Africa Case Law

S.A.P v S (Bail Appeal) (CAB 05/2025)

S.A.P v S (Bail Appeal) (CAB 05/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 92 (2 June 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CAB 05/2025

Judge

A. Reddy

The court found that while the appellant introduced new facts in his supplementary affidavit, these facts were not sufficiently compelling to alter the balance of the interests of justice in his favour. The seriousness of the offence, the domestic violence context, and the risk to the complainant remained paramount. The magistrate correctly applied the statutory framework under section 60(11)(c) and section 60(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and did not exercise her discretion wrongly. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of showing that the interests of justice permitted his release…

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Domestic Violence
• Interests Of Justice
• New Facts In Bail
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Plea And Sentence Agreement

Mabaso v S (101/2022)

Mabaso v S (101/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 322 (28 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

101/2022

Judge

MA Makume

The court found that the applicant failed to present credible new facts to justify reconsideration of bail. The medical certificate dated 30 August 2023 was not presented at the earlier hearing despite being in the applicant's possession, and its authenticity was questioned. The applicant did not provide satisfactory explanations for his absence on multiple required dates, nor did he address his history of violating bail conditions and committing further offences while on bail. The court held that the applicant's conduct undermined the administration of justice and that the evidence presented…

Source excerpt

• Bail Cancellation
• Onus Of Proof
• New Facts In Bail
• Failure To Comply With Bail Conditions
• Administration Of Justice

Abraham v S (A395/18)

Abraham v S (A395/18) [2022] ZAGPPHC 691 (13 September 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A395/18

Judges

E van der Schyff, C J van der Westhuizen

The court found that the applicant failed to present new facts sufficient to justify reconsideration of bail. The alleged new facts, including the recantation and supplementation of evidence by the applicant's former wife, were found to be suspect and inadequately explained. The court applied the principles from Liesching and Others v The State, holding that the requirements for admitting new evidence were not met: there was no reasonable explanation for the absence of the evidence at trial, no prima facie likelihood of its truth, and no material relevance established. The court concluded tha…

Source excerpt

• Bail Pending Appeal
• New Facts In Bail
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Recantation Of Evidence

Mthetwa v S (A20/2022)

Mthetwa v S (A20/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 330 (11 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A20/2022

Judge

Noko AJ

The court found that the appellant failed to present genuine new facts in his second bail application. The alleged delay in investigation was not supported by the record, as the case was ready for trial and had been set down. The appellant's personal circumstances and assertions of being a changed person did not constitute new facts as required by law. The magistrate did not err in refusing bail, and there was no basis for the appeal court to interfere with the decision. The interests of justice did not warrant admission to bail, and the appeal was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• New Facts In Bail
• Flight Risk
• Delay In Investigation
• Interest Of Justice

Dlangamandla v S (A05/2020)

Dlangamandla v S (A05/2020) [2021] ZAMPMHC 12 (6 April 2021)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

A05/2020

Judge

TV Ratshibvumo

The court held that the magistrate did not misdirect herself in refusing bail. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving exceptional circumstances as required for Schedule 6 offences. His affidavit evidence was not independently corroborated and was less persuasive, and he did not present new facts that were genuinely new or relevant to the bail application. The so-called new facts, such as the completion of investigations and absence of tracking records, did not alter the strength of the State's case, which included a confession, eyewitness testimony, and cell phone records. The…

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Schedule 6 Offence
• Onus Of Proof
• New Facts In Bail
• Confession Admissibility

Sikhakhane v S (BA19/2020)

Sikhakhane v S (BA19/2020) [2020] ZAMPMHC 38 (31 August 2020)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

BA 19/2020

Judge

Brauckmann

Bail appeal in a Schedule 5 matter stalled because the record was incomplete; the High Court issued directions to file the missing materials.

• Bail Application
• Schedule 5 Offences
• New Facts In Bail
• Judicial Discretion
• Bail-appeal
• Schedule-5-offences

Nwabunwanne v S (CA&R114/2016)

Nwabunwanne v S (CA&R114/2016) [2017] ZANCHC 9; 2017 (2) SACR 124 (NCK) (31 January 2017)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R114/2016

Judge

Erasmus, AJ

The Magistrate misdirected herself by failing to establish whether the offences fell within Schedule 5 and by not requiring the State to provide the necessary certificate or charge sheet description. The confusion regarding the applicable legislative framework resulted in an incorrect allocation of the onus and a flawed bail adjudication process. Furthermore, the Magistrate erred in refusing the appellant the opportunity to adduce evidence in support of new facts, particularly regarding the absence of video or audio evidence linking him to the offences. The respondent did not dispute these su…

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Onus Of Proof
• New Facts In Bail
• Schedule 5 Offences

Khumalo v S (A262/16)

Khumalo v S (A262/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 685 (11 August 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A262/16

Judge

M S Makamu

High Court appeal against refusal of bail on new facts dismissed. The court held the medical evidence and vehicle photographs were not genuinely new facts.

• Bail Application
• Exceptional Circumstances
• New Facts In Bail
• Onus Of Proof
• Bail-application
• Exceptional-circumstances

Davis and Another v S (2888/2015)

Davis and Another v S (2888/2015) [2015] ZAKZDHC 41 (8 May 2015)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

2888/2015

Judge

Steyn

The court held that the appellants were not entitled to challenge the first refusal of bail after launching a new application on new facts. The facts presented in the second application did not constitute 'new facts' as required by Section 65 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but were merely an elaboration of evidence already before the court. The procedural requirements of Section 65 are peremptory, and the notice of appeal restricted the appeal to the decision of 14 November 2014. The magistrate's decision was not wrong, and the appeal was procedurally flawed. The court emphasized that allowin…

Source excerpt

• Bail Application
• Exceptional Circumstances
• New Facts In Bail
• Section 65 Criminal Procedure Act
• Constitutional Rights

Nkhi v S (A20/13)

Nkhi v S (A20/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 317 (1 November 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A20/13

Judge

Dewrance

Appeal against refusal of bail on new facts dismissed. The court held the proposed lease was a sham and electronic disclosure issues did not justify release.

• Bail Application
• Onus Of Proof
• New Facts In Bail
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 60
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 65
• Bail-application