Essop v S (AR 305/2023) [2025] ZAKZPHC 131 (12 December 2025)

Case Note

Essop v The State
Case No: AR 305/2023
Date of Judgment: 12 December 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it addresses significant issues around bail applications, particularly in the context of post-conviction reconsideration applications under the Superior Courts Act of 2013. The ruling establishes parameters for determining what constitutes a "new fact" in bail applications, which is critical for similar future bail considerations, especially for individuals seeking to contest their convictions or sentences in a changing judicial environment. This judgment assists in delineating the responsibilities of the parties involved in ensuring compliance with procedural rules.

Cases Cited

1. S v Vermaas 1996 (1) SACR 528 (T)
2. Davis and Another v S [2015] ZAKZDHC 41
3. S v Mpofana 1998 (1) SACR 40 (Tk)
4. S v Mohammed 1999 (2) SACR 507 (C)
5. Swissborough Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and Others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others 1999 (2) SA 279 (T)
6. S v Masoanganye and Another [2011] ZASCA 119; 2012 (1) SACR 292 (SCA)
7. Avnit v First Rand Bank Ltd [2014] ZASCA 132
8. Motsoeneng v South African Broadcasting Corporation SOC Ltd and Others [2024] ZASCA 80; 2025 (4) SA 122 (SCA)
9. Bidvest Protea Coin Security (Pty) Ltd v Mabena [2025] ZASCA 23; 2025 (3) SA 362 (SCA)
10. Minister of Police and Another v Ramabanta [2025] ZASCA 95

Legislation Cited

• Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
• Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (CPA)

Rules of Court Cited

• SCA Practice Directive 01/2018

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case involves an application by Naeem Essop seeking bail pending the outcome of his reconsideration application to the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) following his conviction on murder charges. The court ultimately dismissed the application for bail, focusing on the elements constituting a "new fact" and the implications of his previous non-compliance with procedural requirements. The ruling reaffirms the judicial scrutiny applied in bail applications, especially for convicted individuals.

Key Issues

The central legal issues before the court included: - The existence of a new fact relevant to the bail application. - The applicant's status as a flight risk. - The prospects of success in the reconsideration application before the SCA. - The overall interests of justice regarding the release from custody.

Held

The High Court dismissed Essop's application for bail on the grounds that he did not provide a legitimate "new fact" to warrant reconsideration of the bail application. Additionally, the court found that even if new facts were established, the applicant did not demonstrate sufficient grounds to support his release on bail pending the reconsideration.

THE FACTS

Naeem Essop was initially convicted of murder and placed under a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment in 2016. Following various legal proceedings, including a successful appeal in 2018 that led to the dismissal of his conviction, the State reinstated charges against him. After subsequent trials and renewed convictions, Essop was granted bail pending appeal and later found himself in custody again post-dismissal of that appeal. His attempt to secure bail pending a reconsideration application to the SCA was based on claims of procedural non-compliance by the State. Essop asserted that the cancellation of the SCA’s stamp on the State’s answering affidavit constituted a new fact warranting his release.

THE ISSUES

The court had to resolve several critical legal questions: whether there was a new fact presented by Essop justifying a fresh bail hearing; whether he represented a flight risk or had misled the court regarding his assets; whether he had sufficient prospects of success in his upcoming reconsideration application; and whether, in the interests of justice, he should be granted bail.

ANALYSIS

The court's analysis involved a thorough review of what constitutes a "new fact." The judge emphasized the need for significant differences in the facts presented from those in the previous bail application and clarified that procedural non-compliance on the respondent’s part, known during the initial application, could not be treated as a new development. The court concluded that Essop’s assertion about the cancellation of the SCA stamp did not meet the criteria for newness as it did not alter the circumstances significantly enough to change the bail status.

The judge also assessed the applicant's character and historical behavior, noting the risk of him absconding due to a perceived escalation of legal challenges and diminished opportunities for appeal. The court conducted a careful examination of Essop's financial situation and connections, ultimately determining that although he demonstrated adherence to the rules previously, the overall indicators suggested a rising likelihood of flight.

REMEDY

The court ordered that Essop's application for bail pending the reconsideration application be dismissed, emphasizing the lack of new and relevant facts to warrant a different conclusion from previous findings. The judicial examination highlighted the necessity for stringent conditions surrounding bail applications, particularly in cases involving serious convictions.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Several key legal principles were underscored by this judgment: - A "new fact" in the context of a bail application must be significantly different from prior facts presented. - Non-compliance with procedural rules, if known at the time of an earlier application, does not constitute new grounds for reconsideration. - The burden of proof lies with the applicant to demonstrate not just conformity with the law but compelling reasons for bail to be granted in the interests of justice. - The presumption of innocence diminishes post-conviction, influencing the evaluation of flight risks and culpability in subsequent bail applications.