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
Moyo v S (A147/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 3 (9 January 2025)
High Court appeal against refusal of bail upheld where the State led scant evidence, flight risk was not established, and safety concerns were unsupported.
Saule v S (CA&R93/2023) [2024] ZAECMHC 23 (2 May 2024)
Bail appeal upheld on new facts including completed investigations, health deterioration, financial hardship, and delayed trial. Bail was granted with conditions.
Matsi and Another v S (A155-2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 172 (22 February 2024)
A bail appeal was upheld after the High Court held the Regional Court proceedings a nullity for lack of written DPP authorisation.
Mabale v S (A120/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 312 (11 August 2023)
High Court appeal against refusal of bail in a rape case. The court held the magistrate confused possibility with probability and granted bail on conditions.
Maredi v S (A110/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 53 (26 January 2023)
The court found that the magistrate did not misdirect herself in treating the bail application as falling under Schedule 5, as the additional count involving an amount exceeding R500,000 was properly added before the accused pleaded. The appellant, through his legal representative, accepted proceeding under Schedule 5 and did not request a postponement. The new facts advanced by the appellant, including health concerns, family circumstances, and financial hardship, were considered but did not satisfy the court that the interests of justice permitted release. The appellant's history of evading…
Source excerpt
Khoza v S (A45/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 319 (1 June 2020)
High Court appeal against refusal of bail in a murder case succeeded. The court found no sufficient basis for flight risk, witness interference, or public-outcry refusal.
Fikeni v S (A80/19) [2019] ZAGPJHC 249 (25 June 2019)
The court held that the refusal of bail was justified, interpreting the right to bail through the lens of constitutional obligations to protect women as a vulnerable group. The judge found, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant posed a threat to the complainant, supported by affidavits, photographs, and message evidence. The court emphasized the imperative to protect women under both the Constitution and international law, specifically referencing Carmichele and CEDAW. The appellant's personal circumstances were considered but found insubstantial compared to the risks identified.…
Source excerpt
Mdhluli v S (BA23/18) [2019] ZALMPPHC 6; 2020 (1) SACR 98 (LP) (10 January 2019)
High Court bail appeal upheld after the magistrate refused bail. The court held that witnesses were improperly called mero motu and that bail should have been granted.
Molefe and Others v S (A269/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 1 (9 January 2014)
The court found that the magistrate erred by focusing solely on the strength of the State's case and failing to consider the appellants' personal circumstances as required by section 60(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. The evidence against the appellants was incomplete, largely reliant on accomplice testimony and ongoing cellphone analysis, and did not establish a strong prima facie case. The first and third appellants were not directly implicated by corroborated evidence, and the second appellant's alleged confession was made under duress, negating its probative value. The investigating off…
Source excerpt
Faquir v S (A73/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 523 (15 May 2013)
The High Court found that the Magistrate erred in refusing bail to the appellant. The refusal was based on unreliable hearsay evidence regarding alleged unlawful activities at the proposed bail address, which was not properly verified or put to the appellant or her witness for rebuttal. The Magistrate failed to make clear factual findings and did not consider imposing suitable bail conditions to mitigate any perceived risk. The appellant demonstrated sufficient ties to South Africa, willingness to surrender travel documents, and no prior convictions. The court held that the appellant's foreig…
Source excerpt
Explore more
