IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ESWATINI
HELD AT MBABANE Case No. 441/18
LUYANDA NKAMBULE APPLICANT
THE KING RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Luyanda Nkambule v The king (441/18)  SZHC 77 (30th April, 2019)
CORAM MASEKO J
FOR APPLICANT: IN PERSON
FOR RESPONDENT: BEAUTY FAKUDZE
DATE OF HEARING: 14TH DECEMBER 2018
DATE OF RULING: 30TH APRIL 2019
 On the 2nd November 2018, the Applicant applied to be admitted to bail for the following offences
- Malicious Injury To Property allegedly committed on the 3rd June 2018
- Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm allegedly Committed on the 6th May 2018
- Assault With Intent To Do Grievous Bodily Harm allegedly Committed on the 3rd June 2018
- Contravening Section 43 (1) of The Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act No 67 67/1938 as Amended
 This application is opposed by the Crown and the Investigating Officer 4947 Detective Constable Mandlenkhosi Dlamini filed an Answering Affidavit wherein he states that the matter is part-heard before the Manzini Magistrate Court. He states further that three crown witnesses had already been led and that they incriminate the Applicant and therefore that it would not be in the interest of justice to admit the him to bail because
- The evidence led by the Crown so far is so strong, it may influence him to evade his trial and thereby injure the interests of justice. He has the propensity to evade his trial as he is also charged with escaping from lawful custody.
- Applicant may attempt to influence Crown witnesses as he knows their identities very well and infact even those that have testified may be recalled to testify, thus all Crown witnesses whether they would have testified or not are at risk of being interfered with by the Applicant should he be admitted to bail.
 The Applicant has filed his replying papers to the Respondent’s Answering Affidavit wherein he denies all the averments by Detective Dlamini.
 I have considered the matter and am of the view that the Applicant is facing serious offences which has the potential of attracting Custodial Sentences without the option of a fine.
 I am also of the considered view that where a matter is pending and part -- heard before another court be it the Magistrate Court or High Court, it is always prudent that the judicial officer dealing with the matter be the one to deal with any interlocutory Application, for example in casu, the bail application.
 In casu the Application for bail was written on the 26th September 2018 and filed before Court on the 2nd November 2018 and on the other hand the trial commenced on the 7th November 2018 before Manzini Magistrate’s Court.
 I am therefore of the considered view that this bail application is dismissed by this court but is referred to the learned Magistrate who is seized with the trial to decide whether bail is granted or not.