Kleave van Staden, who was arrested in connection with the murder of his wife, Jamillah, was denied bail in the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on March 14.
The suspect will remain in custody, as the case was moved back to Booysens Magistrate’s Court on April 5.
Jamillah was stabbed to death on January 8 in Forest Hill.
Kleave first appeared in Booysens Magistrate’s Court on January 11, where his case was transferred to Court 13 at the Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court on January 21 for bail application.
From January 21 to March 11, he was in and out of Court 13. He firstly applied for legal aid representation and declined it at a later stage. He was charged with the murder of his wife under Schedule 5.
What happened on January 8?
On March 11, he was called to the witness stand to explain what happened on the day his wife was killed.
He said on the fateful day the children were in the lounge, watching TV.
“As I was sitting on the edge of the bed getting undressed, my wife suddenly grabbed me by the neck. I didn’t know why because we didn’t fight. She slashed me twice in the neck with a knife. I took my belt that was on the floor and hit her twice.”
Kleave mentioned there was a tussle trying to get the knife.
“I put her down, opened the door that was closed and asked my son to get help. I saw her eyes were closed. I then tried to slit my wrists because I saw she might be dead,” said Kleave.
Kleave said the police and paramedics arrived, and he was taken to hospital for stitches.
Prosecutor Mabunda disputed Kleave’s version of events. He said according to the eyewitness, Kleave’s 10-year-old son, he saw his father going into the kitchen to get the knife after the fight with his wife.
“The son said he later heard his mother scream. After the fight, you cut yourself, saying you will rather die than go to jail.”
It was also established Kleave had four other cases against him, with three being withdrawn and the other one being assault GBH. The deceased opened that case. He paid an admission of guilt fine.
Witness called
Lillian Buckland, a community leader, was called to the stand. She said she has known the accused for many years and the deceased since 2010.
“We are a small community, and I know there have been problems between them for so long. It was very violent. She would come to the office bruised and tell us her husband did that to her.
“I don’t think he should get bail because inevitably, he will interact with the witnesses. We are so close, we shop in the same area.”
Kleave’s lawyer, Mr Modumaela, argued Buckland is harbouring negative feelings towards the accused.
“Even the petition with 705 signatures spearheaded by the witness carries discrepancies. It is clear that some signatures were made by the same person. Some names do not have phone numbers. The court must approach the petition with caution.
“The witness is biased. She tried to portray his family as violent, but when cross-examined, she didn’t know the family of the accused. We must not take rumours as facts.”
No bail
Mabunda said the accused must not be granted bail because the allegations levelled against him are serious.
“When the accused asked about the case of assault GBH and him paying the admission of guilt fine, he said he didn’t remember who the complainant was. We wasted our time proving it was the deceased. He needs to be honest with the court.
“When you pay the admission of guilt fine, you admit to the matter. How can you admit to a case you know nothing about? He must not be released on bail because the community does not want him on the streets.”
Bail denied
The magistrate denied bail for Kleave based on many factors, including that he was arrested for assault GBH in 2012, which was a case involving the deceased.
“The applicant can commit violent acts, as proven previously. He will attempt to influence the witnesses. He tried to commit suicide by slashing his wrists, and his statement contradicts that of the eyewitness.
“The applicant needs to satisfy this court that in the interests of justice, permits his release on bail. The court must play an active role. The severity of the crime and the interest of the community must be taken into consideration.
“It is clear on balance of probability that the applicant was ingenious in his plea. Although he disclosed the crime, he said he didn’t remember the complainant. Also, the witness was credible, and it was clear she didn’t want to gain anything but to relate the facts. The court admits the legitimacy of the petition.
“The applicant was not honest in his testimony. He did not satisfy this court. He came across as dishonest. He is a danger to himself and the children, as he acted irrationally after the deceased death, and he tried to commit suicide,” said magistrate Beharie.
The suspect will remain in custody until his next court appearance.
