SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: A216/25
COURT A QUO CASE NO: RC 21/2024
HEARD ON: 3 SEPTEMBER 2025
JUDGMENT: 10 SEPTEMBER 2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO
(3) REVISED
DATE : 10 September 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:-
GLEN NEGUYO LELO NGOBENI APPELLANT
AND
THE STATE RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
Strijdom J
1. This is an appeal against the refusal of the Vereeniging Regional Court to
grant the appellant bail pending the finalization of his trial. The appeal is
opposed by the State.
2
2. The appellant and three other accused had been charged with murder,
kidnapping, robbery with aggravating circumstances and possession of an
unlicensed firearm and ammunition.
3. The appellant was arrested on 12 June 2024. He was kept in custody until he
applied for bail on 28 June 2024. On 13 November 2024 the Magistrate
refused to admit him to bail.
4. The appeal has been lodged in terms of section 65(4) of the Criminal
Procedure Act 51 of 1977 (“CPA”) which enjoins the Court hearing the appeal
not to interfere with the Magistrate’s decision unless it is satisfied that such
decision was wrong.
5. It is clear from the provisions of the subsection that the duty to satisfy the
appeal Court that the lower Court’s decision was wrong is borne by the
appellant. The fact that the Court of Appeal could have granted bail had it
been the court of first instance does not justify interference.
6. It is common cause between the parties that the appellant was charged with
Schedule 6 offences which triggered the application of the provisions of
section 60(11)(a) of the CPA. The said section places a heavy onus upon the
applicant for bail. It requires him, in peremptory terms, to adduce evidence
and satisfy the Court hearing the application that exceptional circumstances
exist in his case which in the interest of justice permit his release.
7. The appellant filed two affidavits in support of his application for bail which was
read into the record and admitted as exhibits. In reply to the affidavit deposed
to by Detective Sgt Ramakatsa, the appellant addressed the issues raised
therein by way of viva voce evidence.
3
8. The respondent, in response to the appellant’s application have proceeded by
way of two affidavits, deposed to by Detective Sgt Ramakatsu, which was read
into the record and admitted as exhibits.
9. The facts giving rise to the present proceedings have been fully dealt with in
the judgment of the Court a quo and I do not propose to repeat them in any
detail. The gist of the State case, as it appears from the affidavits filed by
Detective Sgt Ramakatsu, can be summarised as follows:
9.1 On 13 February 2024 at about 7:00 the body of Mr. Adriaan Theunis
van Lingen (“the deceased”) was found in an open veld around
Kliprivier, Midvaal. His hands were bound behind his back. He was
lying on his stomach with a gunshot wound at the back of his head.
9.2 Further investigations revealed that there was an amount of R500 000-
00 (five hundred thousand rand) transferred from the deceased’s ABSA
bank account on 12 February 2024 at about 00:12 to an unknown bank
account.
9.3 It was further determined that between 23:10 and 23:25, on the same
day the deceased’s bank card was used to make purchases, which led
to the arrest of two suspects.
9.4 The cellphone number of accused no 1 (Mandla Nkosi), was
forensically imaged and the cellphone data as well as the tower
information was obtained via a Section 205 subpoena. On analysis of
this phone, communication was found that occurred between accused
no 1 with cellphone number 0[...] and the appellant with cellphone 0[...]
which linked the appellant to his involvement in the murder of the
deceased.
4
9.5 A screenshot of a notice of payment from the deceased’s bank account
to bank account number 4[...] was sent from accused 1’s cellphone to
the appellant’s cellphone, further connecting the appellant with the
crime.
9.6 In WhatsApp communication between accused no 1 and the appellant
that occurred on 12 February 2024 at around 17:01 the following
message was sent by the appellant to accused no 1:
“Avelly I spoke to Felix, we are going to have to delete this guy ... the
cash we will not get it.”
Accused no 1 replied: “Sure”.
9.7 Another important screenshot on accused 1’s cellphone was an image
of a banking application that was assessed from the phone of the
deceased indicating the balance of the deceased’s ABSA account.
9.8 A picture of a letter addressed to the appellant was found on accused
1’s cellphone. The letter dated 12 February 2024 was in possession of
the deceased. This letter is a cancellation of the sales agreement due
to non-payment and contractual differences.
9.9 The deceased had a scheduled appointment with the appellant on 12
February 2024 at his commercial premises in Olifantsfontein which the
appellant was renting with an option to buy.
9.10 The tracking information obtained of the vehicle belonging to the
deceased with registration number K[...] recorded the vehicle on 12
February 2024 at around 11:30 on the premises which the appellant
was renting from the company of the deceased. This was the last
coordinates received from the tracking device on this vehicle. The
5
vehicle was subsequently burned, and the vehicle was discovered soon
after discovering the deceased.
9.11 Subsequent to the arrest of the appellant, the vehicle which he was
driving was searched by the police and a unlicensed firearm was
discovered.
9.12 Upon search of the residential property at 3[...] M[...] O[...] that the
appellant rented from the deceased, of which the appellant claims
ownership, a vehicle number plate linked to the deceased’s vehicle was
found. A number of blood samples were discovered in the property
which are suspected to be the blood of the deceased.
9.13 During the processing of the appellant’s detainment at the police
station, the appellant attempted to bribe the investigating officer and his
colleagues with R500 000-00 cash to make the case disappear against
him.
9.14 The address where the appellant lives, [...] D[...] Street, B[...] V[...], Golf
Estate and which he claims ownership to, belongs to Mr. Pillay and his
wife. The original agreement between the appellant and Mr. Pillay
regarding this property was a rental agreement with the option to
purchase as was the case with the property belonging to the company
of the deceased. The appellant is in breach of this agreement. The
appellant was notified by the property practitioner that if a bond is not
registered by end of July 2024, the appellant needs to move out of the
property at the end of August.
9.15 The property, 3[...] M[...] Road O[…], is still owned by OEC Industrial
Holdings, the company of the deceased. This company served eviction
notices on the appellant.
6
10. The appellant testified in his application for bail and was duly cross-examined
by the prosecutor.
11. The appellant was an unreliable witness. He conceded that he was lying on
the following material issues in his affidavit:
11.1 The house at number 1[…], D[…] Street, B[...] V[...] Golf Estate in
Centurion belongs to him with a small outstanding bond held by FNB.
11.2 He has no previous convictions. The appellant was convicted in July
1999 on attempted theft and possession of housebreaking implements.
He was sentenced to six years imprisonment.
11.3 He have a diploma in Motor Mechanics and Criminology.
11.4 He has 36 construction vehicles.
11.5 He know accused 1 as he does work for the appellant regularly.
12. The appellant contends that the respondent’s case against him is very weak
and largely circumstantial.
13. It was argued by the appellant that the Court a quo have erred both on the
facts and the law in not holding that the appellant had proven on a balance of
probabilities that there are exceptional circumstances which in the interest of
justice permit the release of the appellant on bail.
14. The learned Magistrate concluded that there is a prima facie case against the
appellant based on the circumstantial evidence. He further concluded that the
appellant’s personal circumstances are not exceptional circumstances.
7
15. The learned Magistrate duly considered the factors listed in section 60(4) of
the CPA and the evidence tendered by the appellant and the respondent.
16. The charges against the appellant are serious. He faces a long term of
imprisonment if convicted.
17. The State’s case against the appellant appears, on the face of it to be fairly
strong. But even in the face of a seemingly strong case against the appellant,
what is required is a weighing up of the interest of justice against the
appellant’s personal circumstances, in particular the prejudice that the
appellant may suffer if he is refused bail.
18. The learned Magistrate duly weighed up the interests of justice against the
personal circumstances of the appellant.
19. I conclude that the appellant has not discharged the onus of proving
exceptional circumstances. It must necessarily follow that on an analysis of
the evidence as a whole, the appellant has not succeeded in demonstrating
the decision of the Court a quo was wrong and should be set aside.
20. In the event the appeal is dismissed.
J.J. STRIJDOM
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
APPEARANCES:
8
For the appellant: Mr M Mohohlo
Instructed by: Mahoko Mohohlo Attorneys
For the respondent: Adv Khoza
Instructed by: The Director of Public Prosecutions