Masilela and Others v Bouwers and Others (63532/2012, 16995/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 103; 2013 (2) SACR 350 (GNP) (16 April 2013)

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to urgent relief compelling their transfer to a Johannesburg correctional centre.
  2. 2 Whether the administrative actions of classification and placement were unlawful, irrational, or mala fide.
  3. 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.