Minister for Correctional Services and Another v Van Vuren and Another and Another, In re Van Vuuren v Minister for Correctional Services and Others (CCT 07/10) [2011] ZACC 9; 2011 (10) BCLR 1051 (CC) (31 March 2011)

Minister for Correctional Services and Another v Van Vuren and Another and Another, In re Van Vuuren v Minister for Correctional Services and Others (CCT 07/10) [2011] ZACC 9; 2011 (10) BCLR 1051 (CC) (31 March 2011)

The Court held that its previous judgment was clear and unambiguous, and did not require clarification or variation. The order did not intend to include the National Council for Correctional Services in the process of parole consideration for offenders sentenced to life imprisonment before 1 October 2004. The suggestion that the implementation of the order would amount to unlawful administrative action was rejected. The requirements for variation under Rule 42(1) were not met, as there was no ambiguity, error, or omission in the original order. The application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

Citation
[2011] ZACC 9
Parties
Applicant: Minister for Correctional Services; Applicant: Commissioner of Correctional Services; Respondent: Paul Francious Van Vuren; Respondent: Chairperson, National Council for Correctional Services
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2011
Case Number
CCT 07/10
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Vary or Clarify Previous Constitutional Court Order
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Ngcobo, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Mogoeng, Mthiyane, Nkabinde, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Variation of Court Order, Parole Eligibility, Jurisdictional Facts, Reviewable Administrative Action
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Variation of Court Order Parole Eligibility Jurisdictional Facts Reviewable Administrative Action

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister for Correctional Services

Applicant

Commissioner of Correctional Services

Applicant

Paul Francious Van Vuren

Respondent

Chairperson, National Council for Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Vary or Clarify Previous Constitutional Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Constitutional Court's previous order requires clarification or variation regarding the role of the National Council for Correctional Services in parole consideration for offenders sentenced to life imprisonment before 1 October 2004.
  2. 2 Whether a recommendation by the National Council for Correctional Services is a jurisdictional fact for the Minister's administrative action in granting parole.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of such a recommendation renders the Minister's decision ultra vires or unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that its previous judgment was clear and unambiguous, and did not require clarification or variation. The order did not intend to include the National Council for Correctional Services in the process of parole consideration for offenders sentenced to life imprisonment before 1 October 2004. The suggestion that the implementation of the order would amount to unlawful administrative action was rejected. The requirements for variation under Rule 42(1) were not met, as there was no ambiguity, error, or omission in the original order. The application was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.