Kerkhoff v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (2011 (2) SACR 109 (GNP)) [2010] ZAGPPHC 5; 14920/2009 (10 February 2010)

Kerkhoff v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (2011 (2) SACR 109 (GNP)) [2010] ZAGPPHC 5; 14920/2009 (10 February 2010)

The applicant failed to establish contempt of court as the relevant respondents were not in possession of the documents listed in annexure 'A', and any non-compliance was not wilful or mala fide. The applicant had already received all documents in the police docket as ordered, and the sixth and seventh respondents, who held the documents sought, were not parties to the relevant proceedings and were not bound by the orders. The documents in question were confidential and not part of the docket. The applicant could not rely directly on section 32 of the Constitution for access, as PAIA governs such requests and was not invoked. The application was misconceived, both in its purpose and in...

Citation
[2010] ZAGPPHC 5
Parties
Applicant: Georg Wilhelm Kerkhoff; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development; Respondent: Minister of Safety and Security; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions; Respondent: Advocate J Cronje; Respondent: Captain Collin Morris, Randburg SAPS; Respondent: Teddy Bear Clinic; Respondent: Shaheda Omar
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2010
Case Number
14920/2009
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Final Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and own client scale against the applicant in favour of the second, third, fourth, and fifth respondents.
Judges
B.R. Southwood, J. Hiemstra
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Access to Information, Child Witnesses, Intermediary Appointment, Confidentiality of Records
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Access to Information Child Witnesses Intermediary Appointment Confidentiality of Records

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Georg Wilhelm Kerkhoff

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development

Respondent

Minister of Safety and Security

Respondent

Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Advocate J Cronje

Respondent

Captain Collin Morris, Randburg SAPS

Respondent

Teddy Bear Clinic

Respondent

Shaheda Omar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Final Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established contempt of court against the respondents for failure to comply with previous court orders.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to access the confidential documents listed in annexure 'A' held by the sixth and seventh respondents.
  3. 3 Whether section 32 of the Constitution or the rules in Shabalala entitle the applicant to the documents sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish contempt of court as the relevant respondents were not in possession of the documents listed in annexure 'A', and any non-compliance was not wilful or mala fide. The applicant had already received all documents in the police docket as ordered, and the sixth and seventh respondents, who held the documents sought, were not parties to the relevant proceedings and were not bound by the orders. The documents in question were confidential and not part of the docket. The applicant could not rely directly on section 32 of the Constitution for access, as PAIA governs such requests and was not invoked. The application was misconceived, both in its purpose and in...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and own client scale against the applicant in favour of the second, third, fourth, and fifth respondents.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the second, third, fourth and fifth respondents on the scale as between attorney and own client.