Hani and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (29654/14, 27095B/14,29704A/14, 29705/14, 29655B/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 341 (30 May 2014)

Hani and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (29654/14, 27095B/14,29704A/14, 29705/14, 29655B/14) [2014] ZAGPPHC 341 (30 May 2014)

The respondents, specifically the third and fourth respondents, were aware of the court order requiring immediate release of the applicants and were properly served via hand delivery and email to the State Attorney and relevant officials. Their failure to comply was prima facie mala fide and not justified by administrative concerns. The argument that service should have been effected by the Sheriff is without merit, as Rule 4A permits service by hand or electronic mail on the State Attorney. The applicants were entitled to bring contempt proceedings, and the respondents' conduct necessitated such action. Only the third and fourth respondents, who were directly responsible for the...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 341
Parties
Applicant: M E A HANI; Applicant: K IRSHAD; Applicant: B C IHENACHO; Applicant: A HUSSAN; Applicant: H A HAYILE; Respondent: THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS; Respondent: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HOME AFFAIRS; Respondent: THE HEAD OF LINDELA REPATRIATION CENTRE; Respondent: THE DIRECTOR OF DEPORTATION
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2014
Case Number
29654/14, 27095B/14, 29704A/14, 29705/14, 29655B/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Contempt Application
Outcome
Costs awarded against the third and fourth respondents on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
BAM
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Service of Process, Costs Order, Immediate Release, Rule 4a
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Contempt of Court Service of Process Costs Order Immediate Release Rule 4a

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M E A HANI

Applicant

K IRSHAD

Applicant

B C IHENACHO

Applicant

A HUSSAN

Applicant

H A HAYILE

Applicant

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS

Respondent

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HOME AFFAIRS

Respondent

THE HEAD OF LINDELA REPATRIATION CENTRE

Respondent

THE DIRECTOR OF DEPORTATION

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Costs Determination Following Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were in contempt of the court order requiring immediate release of the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether service of the court order by hand and email on the State Attorney was sufficient.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were entitled to bring contempt applications in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents, specifically the third and fourth respondents, were aware of the court order requiring immediate release of the applicants and were properly served via hand delivery and email to the State Attorney and relevant officials. Their failure to comply was prima facie mala fide and not justified by administrative concerns. The argument that service should have been effected by the Sheriff is without merit, as Rule 4A permits service by hand or electronic mail on the State Attorney. The applicants were entitled to bring contempt proceedings, and the respondents' conduct necessitated such action. Only the third and fourth respondents, who were directly responsible for the...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded against the third and fourth respondents on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The third and fourth respondents are ordered to pay the applicants' costs on the scale of attorney and client in each of the above matters.