Lawyers for Human Rights v Minster in the Presidency and Others (44151/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1150 (23 June 2015)
The court found that the application did not meet the threshold for urgency. The incident cited by the applicant was isolated, and there was no evidence or suggestion that similar abuses of power were likely to recur imminently. The factual matrix did not support a reasonable apprehension of future harm....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] ZAGPPHC 1150
- Parties
- Applicant: Lawyers for Human Rights; Respondent: Minister in the Presidency; Respondent: Minister of Home Affairs; Respondent: Minister of Defence; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Director General of Home Affairs; Respondent: National Commissioner of Police; Respondent: Provincial Commissioner of Police: Gauteng Province; Respondent: Chief of the National South African Defence Force
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 44151/2015
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Enrolment on Urgent Roll
- Outcome
- Application dismissed for lack of urgency; removed from the roll.
- Judges
- Hiemstra
- Legal Topics
- Urgency in Motion Proceedings, Abuse of Power, Section 13 7 Saps Act
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lawyers for Human Rights
Applicant
Minister in the Presidency
Respondent
Minister of Home Affairs
Respondent
Minister of Defence
Respondent
Minister of Police
Respondent
Director General of Home Affairs
Respondent
National Commissioner of Police
Respondent
Provincial Commissioner of Police: Gauteng Province
Respondent
Chief of the National South African Defence Force
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Enrolment on Urgent Roll
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application is sufficiently urgent to warrant immediate enrolment and hearing.
- 2 Whether there is a reasonable apprehension of repeated abuse of power under Section 13(7) of the South African Police Service Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application did not meet the threshold for urgency. The incident cited by the applicant was isolated, and there was no evidence or suggestion that similar abuses of power were likely to recur imminently. The factual matrix did not support a reasonable apprehension of future harm. Accordingly, the application was not urgent and was removed from the roll.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed for lack of urgency; removed from the roll.
Orders
- The application is removed from the roll for lack of urgency.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the respondents' costs on a party and party scale, including the costs of two counsel and senior counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
39 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GUATENG DIVISION,PRETORIA
CASE NO: 44151/2015
DATE: 05-02- 2016
NOT REPROTABLE
NOT OF INTERESTS TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
In the matter between:
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Applicant
and
MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY
1st Respondent
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
2nd Respondent
MINISTER OF DEFENCE
3rd Respondent
MINISTER OF POLICE
4th Respondent
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HOME AFFAIRS
5th Respondent
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
6th Respondent
PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONER OF POLICE:
GAUTENG PROVINCE
7th Respondent
CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL SOUTH AFRICAN
DEFENCE FORCE
8th Respondent
JUDGEMENT
HIEMSTRA, AJ:
The question I have to answer at this stage, is whether this application is urgent, to such an extent that I should enrol and hear the application, as such. I have carefully read all the papers and I have listened to the submissions made to me. On a conspectus of everything that I have heard and I have read, the factual situation is there was a possible abuse of power by the Provincial or National Commissioner of Police by issuing authorisation under Section 13(7) of the South African Police Service Act.
There is no evidence that this was a trend that is going to happen again, in the near future. There is no suggestion on the papers that the situation in the country is such, that it may be necessary at any moment to act in the same manner, whether it was lawful or not. This application, in effect, concerns an incident that occurred on the 8th of May 2015 and the applicant anticipate and believe that there is a reasonable apprehension that it will, in the future, again and again transpire.
I have no reason to suspect that will happen. I find that the application is not urgent and it is therefore removed from the roll.
As far as costs are concerned, the applicants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs on a party and party scale. The costs include the costs of two counsel and the costs of senior counsel, in the case of the 5th and 6th respondents.
COURT ADJOURNS
APPEARING FOR APPLICANT: ADV KENNEDY APPEARING
APPEARING FOR RESPONDENTS:
ADV DIKOBE