Du Preez and Another v Truth and Reconciliation Commission (426/96) [1997] ZASCA 2 (18 February 1997)

Du Preez and Another v Truth and Reconciliation Commission (426/96) [1997] ZASCA 2 (18 February 1997)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its committees are under a common law duty to act fairly towards persons implicated to their detriment in its hearings. This duty encompasses giving reasonable and timeous notice of hearings and informing such persons of the substance of the allegations against them with sufficient detail. The Court found that the notice given to the appellants was neither reasonable nor timeous, and the information provided was insufficiently detailed. While the Commission may, in exceptional cases, withhold the identity of witnesses to protect them, this does not justify failing to provide adequate particulars of the...

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 2
Parties
Appellant: Jan Abraham Du Preez; Appellant: Nicolaas Jacobus Janse van Rensburg; Respondent: Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 1997
Case Number
426/96
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench Decision of Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; order of the lower court altered to clarify the Commission's obligations regarding notice and disclosure.
Judges
Corbett, E M Grosskopf, Eksteen, Marais, Olivier
Legal Topics
Procedural Fairness, Audi Alteram Partem, Notice Requirements, Truth and Reconciliation Act, Legitimate Expectation
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Procedural Fairness Audi Alteram Partem Notice Requirements Truth and Reconciliation Act Legitimate Expectation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jan Abraham Du Preez

Appellant

Nicolaas Jacobus Janse van Rensburg

Appellant

Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Full Bench Decision of Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Truth and Reconciliation Commission was obliged to give reasonable and timeous notice to persons implicated in its hearings.
  2. 2 Whether the Commission was required to provide sufficient detail of allegations to implicated persons prior to hearings.
  3. 3 Whether the Commission's procedures complied with the requirements of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and its committees are under a common law duty to act fairly towards persons implicated to their detriment in its hearings. This duty encompasses giving reasonable and timeous notice of hearings and informing such persons of the substance of the allegations against them with sufficient detail. The Court found that the notice given to the appellants was neither reasonable nor timeous, and the information provided was insufficiently detailed. While the Commission may, in exceptional cases, withhold the identity of witnesses to protect them, this does not justify failing to provide adequate particulars of the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; order of the lower court altered to clarify the Commission's obligations regarding notice and disclosure.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the Court a quo is altered by the addition of a new paragraph 1(c): '(c) The order contained in paragraph (1)(b) shall not be construed as necessarily obliging the Respondent, in complying therewith, to disclose the identity of any witness whose evidence the Respondent proposes to present or allow to be...