IN THE HIGH COURT OF ESWATINI
Case No. 325/2012
In the matter between:
Neutral citation: Rex v Lucky Manana (325/2012)  SZHC 02 (28 January 2021)
CORAM : T.L. DLAMINI J
Heard : 11 September 2020
Delivered : 28 January 2021
 Criminal law and procedure – Bail – Failure to attend court when required to do so
Accused person was admitted to bail but could not be located when court processes directing him to appear for his trial were to be served upon him – His eventual court appearance was secured through the issuance of a warrant for his arrest – A date was set on which he was called upon to show cause why his bail should not be revoked – During the hearing, he elected not to give any reasons which explain his non-appearance but only made technical submissions through his attorney.
Held - That the accused failed to give satisfactory reasons why he disappeared and could not be located when the court required his attendance for commencement of trial – Bail accordingly revoked.
By the grant of bail is understood the entering into a contract for the setting at liberty of an accused person who is in custody upon payment of, or the furnishing of a guarantee to pay, the sum of money determined for his bail, for his appearance at the place and on the date and at the time appointed for his trial or to which the proceedings relating to the offence in respect of which the accused is released on bail are adjourned. (p.311)
There is an implied obligation on the part of the State, so long as the bail exists, to allow the accused to remain at liberty. If he is arrested in respect of the relevant offence, that cancels the whole basis of the transaction and the bail falls away.
If upon the day appointed for the hearing of a case it appears by the return of the proper officer or by other sufficient proof that a copy of the indictment and notice of trial … had been duly served or given and the accused does not appear after he has been three times … called by name, the prosecutor may apply to the court for a warrant for the apprehension of such accused and his sureties (if any) be called upon their recognisance, and, in default of his appearance, that it may be then and there declared forfeited; and any such declaration of forfeiture shall have the effect of a judgment on such recognisance for the amounts therein named against such accused and his sureties respectively.
For the crown: Mr S. Phakathi
For the accused: Mr O. Nzima