Masilela and Others v Bouwers and Others (63532/2012, 16995/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 103; 2013 (2) SACR 350 (GNP) (16 April 2013)
The court held that the applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies provided under the Correctional Services Act and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act before approaching the court. The assessment, classification, and placement of offenders are administrative actions, and any challenge must be brought by way of judicial review after internal remedies have been exhausted. The applicants did not challenge their original classification as high risk nor the rationale for their placement in maximum security centres. The process of reclassification and transfer to medium security centres is administrative and takes time, especially given the serious nature of the offences and...
- Citation
- [2013] ZAGPPHC 103
- Parties
- Applicant: Lee Bessie Masilela; Applicant: Thulani Tsewane; Applicant: Bongani Zikalala; Applicant: Seith Raditapole; Applicant: Tebogo Steven Bouwers; Applicant: Mzwandile Magaxaka; Applicant: Ayanda Nene; Respondent: Minister of Correctional Services & Others
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 16 April 2013
- Case Number
- 63532/2012, 16995/2013
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Mandamus; Judgment on Merits and Urgency
- Outcome
- Both applications are dismissed. By consent, respondents in Case No 16995/2013 must procure a reply to the first and second applicants' transfer requests within fifteen days.
- Judges
- E Bertelsmann
- Legal Topics
- Mandamus, Prisoner Transfer, Security Classification, Internal Remedies, Judicial Review, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lee Bessie Masilela
Applicant
Thulani Tsewane
Applicant
Bongani Zikalala
Applicant
Seith Raditapole
Applicant
Tebogo Steven Bouwers
Applicant
Mzwandile Magaxaka
Applicant
Ayanda Nene
Applicant
Minister of Correctional Services & Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Mandamus; Judgment on Merits and Urgency
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to urgent relief compelling their transfer to a Johannesburg correctional centre.
- 2 Whether the administrative actions of classification and placement were unlawful, irrational, or mala fide.
- 3 Whether internal remedies under the Correctional Services Act and PAJA were exhausted before approaching the court.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicants failed to exhaust internal remedies provided under the Correctional Services Act and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act before approaching the court. The assessment, classification, and placement of offenders are administrative actions, and any challenge must be brought by way of judicial review after internal remedies have been exhausted. The applicants did not challenge their original classification as high risk nor the rationale for their placement in maximum security centres. The process of reclassification and transfer to medium security centres is administrative and takes time, especially given the serious nature of the offences and...
Court Disposition
Both applications are dismissed. By consent, respondents in Case No 16995/2013 must procure a reply to the first and second applicants' transfer requests within fifteen days.
Orders
- Both applications are dismissed.
- The respondents in Case No 16995/2013 are ordered, by consent, to procure a reply to the first and second applicants' application for a transfer to the Johannesburg Medium B correctional centre within fifteen days from date hereof.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment