Ngqumba and Another v State President and Others; Damons NO and Others v State President and Others; Jooste v State President and Others (543/86,544/86,545/86) [1988] ZASCA 23 (25 March 1988)

Ngqumba and Another v State President and Others; Damons NO and Others v State President and Others; Jooste v State President and Others (543/86,544/86,545/86) [1988] ZASCA 23 (25 March 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Regulation 3(1) was not void for vagueness, as the period of detention was clearly set at 14 days unless extended or shortened by the Minister. The court found that the police and Minister were not required to provide detailed evidence of considering alternatives to detention in every case, and that the subjective test applied to their decision-making. The Minister's failure to depose to specific criteria or alternatives did not invalidate the detention orders, as the information provided to him and his authorization of affidavits sufficed to infer proper consideration. On the issue of factual disputes, the court reaffirmed the general rule that in...

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 23
Parties
Appellant: Phila Ngqumba; Appellant: Prince Mhamhe; Appellant: Adam Damons N.O.; Appellant: Mxolisi Jackson Fuzile; Appellant: Brian Osteridge; Appellant: Colin Abraham Godfrey Jooste; Respondent: State President; Respondent: Government of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Law and Order; Respondent: Commanding Officer of relevant police station/prison
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 1988
Case Number
543/86,544/86,545/86
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division, High Court
Outcome
All three appeals are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The order of the court a quo is amended to include costs for certain affidavits and qualifying expenses.
Judges
Rabie, Joubert, Viljoen, Hefer, Vivier
Legal Topics
Public Safety Act, Emergency Regulations Detention, Onus in Motion Proceedings, Validity of Arrest, Notification of Arrest Reason, Costs Order
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Public Safety Act Emergency Regulations Detention Onus in Motion Proceedings Validity of Arrest Notification of Arrest Reason +1 more

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 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phila Ngqumba

Appellant

Prince Mhamhe

Appellant

Adam Damons N.O.

Appellant

Mxolisi Jackson Fuzile

Appellant

Brian Osteridge

Appellant

Colin Abraham Godfrey Jooste

Appellant

State President

Respondent

Government of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Law and Order

Respondent

Commanding Officer of relevant police station/prison

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division, High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Regulation 3(1) of Proclamation R 109 of 1986 is void for vagueness regarding the determination of detention period.
  2. 2 Whether police or Minister properly considered alternatives to arrest and detention under the Emergency Regulations.
  3. 3 Whether the Minister complied with criteria for extension of detention under Regulation 3(3) and provided sufficient evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Regulation 3(1) was not void for vagueness, as the period of detention was clearly set at 14 days unless extended or shortened by the Minister. The court found that the police and Minister were not required to provide detailed evidence of considering alternatives to detention in every case, and that the subjective test applied to their decision-making. The Minister's failure to depose to specific criteria or alternatives did not invalidate the detention orders, as the information provided to him and his authorization of affidavits sufficed to infer proper consideration. On the issue of factual disputes, the court reaffirmed the general rule that in...

Court Disposition

All three appeals are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The order of the court a quo is amended to include costs for certain affidavits and qualifying expenses.

Orders

  • All three appeals are dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is amended to add: 'provided that the third respondent is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the two affidavits of Joan Margaret Huskisson, the two affidavits of James Bloomberg and the affidavits of Frederick Jacobus Le Roux and Lieut. Van Wyk as also the qualifying expenses, if...