Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Sevier v S (Bail Appeal) (A(B)03/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 161 (25 March 2025)
Bail pending extradition was refused where the court found the appellant lacked credibility, used fraudulent passport stamps, and posed a high flight risk.
Maleshane v S (Bail Appeal) (CAB 01/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 26 (7 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed a bail appeal pending appeal against conviction, finding that the interests of justice did not support release.
Sibanda and Others v S (096/2016) [2024] ZAGPJHC 955 (23 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed a bail pending appeal application by applicants convicted of racketeering, robbery and related offences, finding they had not shown the interests of justice justified release.
Louis v S (139/2023; A452/2012) [2024] ZAGPPHC 667 (8 May 2024)
High Court appeal against refusal of bail dismissed after finding a strong prima facie case, flight risk, and insufficient proof that release was in the interests of justice.
Luphondo v S (SS026/2014) [2022] ZAGPJHC 675 (9 September 2022)
The High Court dismissed Desai Luphondo’s bail application pending a SCA reconsideration bid, finding he had not shown that the interests of justice justified release.
Manaka v S (A417/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 1 (15 January 2016)
The High Court upheld an appeal against refusal of bail pending appeal and granted the appellant bail of R5,000 subject to reporting and other conditions.
Onwuakpa and Others v S (CA&R271/2015) [2015] ZAECGHC 108 (19 October 2015)
Bail appeal dismissed in a Schedule 5 drug case. The court held the magistrate was not wrong to refuse release given flight risk and risk of reoffending.
Petersen v S (A465/07) [2007] ZAWCHC 52 (5 September 2007)
The appellant failed to establish exceptional circumstances as required by section 60(11)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence did not support a current severe psychiatric condition or a lack of adequate care in detention. The appellant's need to care for her daughter was not substantiated, and her family was capable of providing care. The State's case against the appellant was reasonably strong, supported by cell phone records, witness statements, and confessions. The risk of absconding was heightened by the appellant's request to have insurance proceeds paid into a Namibian accoun…
Source excerpt
Explore more
