Krejcir (B4170/2013), Ex parte [2023] ZAGPPHC 705 (13 August 2023)

Krejcir (B4170/2013), Ex parte [2023] ZAGPPHC 705 (13 August 2023)

The Court found that the applicant failed to provide a factual basis for proceeding ex parte. The only justification offered was a conclusory statement that notice would defeat the purpose, without any supporting facts or explanation of why urgent relief could not be sought with notice. The principle of audi alteram partem is sacrosanct and may only be departed from in very rare and exceptional circumstances, which were not established in this case. The Court therefore declined to grant the relief sought on an ex parte basis, making no finding on the merits or urgency of the substantive relief, so as not to prejudice the applicant's ability to approach the Court in a different format.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 705
Parties
Applicant: Radovan Krejcir; Respondent: Head of Prison, Kgosi Mampuru Maximum Correctional Facility; Respondent: Area Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services; Respondent: Regional Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services; Respondent: National Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 August 2023
Case Number
B4170/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Ex Parte Application for Urgent Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed on the basis that ex parte relief was not justified.
Judges
De Vos
Legal Topics
Right of Access to Healthcare, Urgent Ex Parte Relief, Audi Alteram Partem, Prisoners Rights
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Right of Access to Healthcare Urgent Ex Parte Relief Audi Alteram Partem Prisoners Rights

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Radovan Krejcir

Applicant

Head of Prison, Kgosi Mampuru Maximum Correctional Facility

Respondent

Area Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services

Respondent

Regional Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services

Respondent

National Commissioner, Department of Correctional Services

Respondent

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Ex Parte Application for Urgent Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established exceptional circumstances justifying ex parte relief.
  2. 2 Whether the principle of audi alteram partem can be departed from in this urgent application.
  3. 3 Whether sufficient factual basis exists for dispensing with notice to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant failed to provide a factual basis for proceeding ex parte. The only justification offered was a conclusory statement that notice would defeat the purpose, without any supporting facts or explanation of why urgent relief could not be sought with notice. The principle of audi alteram partem is sacrosanct and may only be departed from in very rare and exceptional circumstances, which were not established in this case. The Court therefore declined to grant the relief sought on an ex parte basis, making no finding on the merits or urgency of the substantive relief, so as not to prejudice the applicant's ability to approach the Court in a different format.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed on the basis that ex parte relief was not justified.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.