Monaledi v S (T503/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1357 (11 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1357 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Monaledi v S (T503/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1357 (11 December 2025) Monaledi v S (T503/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1357 (11 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1357.html sino date 11 December 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) CASE NO. T503/2025 (1)      REPORTABLE: YES/NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3)      REVISED: DATE  11 December 2025 SIGNATURE In the matter of: KAGISO MONALEDI                                                                                 Appellant and THE STATE                                                                                           Respondent JUDGMENT TOLMAY J 1.      This is an appeal in terms of Section 65(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977  (the CPA) against the refusal of the learned magistrate to grant bail to the appellant. The appellant is charged with one count of contravening the provisions of  Section 18(2)(a) of Act 32 of 2007 (Encourage, Enable, Instruct or Persuade a child to perform a sexual act) as well as one count of Rape in contravention of   section 3 of Act 32 of 2007. The matter accordingly resorts under Schedule 6 of the CPA. 2.          In terms of section 60(11)(a) of Act 51 of 1977 the onus rests upon the appellant convince the court that exceptional circumstances exist which in the interests of justice permit his release. 3.          The appellant elected to give evidence through an affidavit in support of his bail application. The prosecution thereafter led the evidence of the investigating officer in opposing the bail application of the appellant. 4.          The state has a duty to disclose the contents of the docket, which makes it the function of the court during a bail application is to determine prima facie the relative strength of the state’s case and not to make a provisional finding of guilt or innocence. 5.          Investigating Officer testified on behalf of the State. He testified that the appellant was pointed out by the minor child as the person who raped her amongst other male general workers employed by the school. The clinical evidence by the doctor that there was vaginal penetration was also placed before the court. 6. The function of the court during a bail application is to   determine prima facie the relative strength of the state’s case and not to make a provisional finding of guilt or innocence [1] It is at this point for the appellant to show on a prima facie basis that the state’s case lacks relative strength. [2] 7.          Section 60(4) (a) to (e) of the Act 51 of 1977 lists the grounds to be taken into consideration whether the interests of justice permit the release of the appellant on bail.  Section 60 (5) to (9) of the Act lists the grounds the court can take into account to determine if the factors mentioned in Section 60(4) (a) to (e) of the Act are indeed present. 8.          In section 60(5) - 60(8) further factors are mentioned which the court may, if applicable, take into account in deciding whether the grounds mentioned in   section 60(4)(a) - (e) have been established. These factors are not numerus clausus and are mere guidelines in assisting the Court in arriving at a just  decision. None of the factors are individually decisive and some of them may  be weightier than others, depending on the circumstances of the particular case. 9.          This court has a limited basis on which it may interfere with the decision of the magistrate in refusing bail. Section 65(4)(b) states that: “ (4). The court or judge hearing the appeal shall not set aside the decision against which the appeal is brought, unless such court or judge is satisfied that the decision was wrong, in which event the court or judge shall give the decision which in its or his opinion the lower court should have given.” 10. In S v Barber [3] the court explained: “ It is well known that the powers of this Court are largely limited where the matter comes before it on appeal and not as a substantive application for bail. This Court has to be persuaded that the magistrate exercised the discretion which he has wrongly. Accordingly, although this Court may have a different view, it should not substitute its own view for that of the magistrate because that would be an unfair interference with the magistrate's exercise of his discretion. I think it should be stressed that, no matter what this Court's own views are, the real question is whether it can be said that the magistrate who had the discretion to grant bail exercised that discretion wrongly.” 11. The appellant faces long term imprisonment for one of the most horrific crimes that is prevalent in our society. This alone may motivate him to attempt not to stand trial and our courts have correctly held the seriousness of an offence and the probable sentence may militate against the granting of appeal. [4] The only alleged special circumstances he raised deals with general issues. There is nothing exceptional about them which could persuade this court to interfere with the decision of the magistrate. There exists no basis for this court to set aside the decision of the magistrate’s court The following is ordered: 1.     The appeal is dismissed. R TOLMAY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Appearances: For Appellant: Adv N Magasa instructed by Mawela Attorneys. For Respondent: Adv A Masekoameng instructed by State Attorney. Date of hearing 11 December 2025. Date of Judgment: 11 December 2025. [1] S v Van Wyk 2005 (1) SACR 41 (SCA) par 6. [2] S v Mathebula 2010 (1) SACR 55 (SCA) par 12 per Heher JA. [3] 1979 (4) SA 218 (D). [4] S v Oosthuizen 2018 (2) SACR 237 (SCA). sino noindex make_database footer start