Nkondo and Others v Minister of Law and Order and Another (22/86) [1986] ZASCA 20 (20 March 1986)

Nkondo and Others v Minister of Law and Order and Another (22/86) [1986] ZASCA 20 (20 March 1986)

The Court held that the Minister's statements accompanying the detention notices did not comply with section 28(3)(b) of the Internal Security Act, 1982. The statements merely repeated the statutory grounds for detention and failed to provide substantive reasons for the decision. The purpose of requiring reasons is to enable the detained person to make meaningful representations to the Minister, as envisaged by section 28(9). Merely informing the person of the statutory ground does not satisfy this requirement. The Court relied on the interpretation of 'reasons' in Sachs v Minister of Justice, 1934 AD 11, which held that reasons must be the basis for the conclusion, not a restatement of...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 20
Parties
Appellant: Curtis Ephraim Nkondo and 7 Others; Respondent: Minister of Law and Order and Another; Appellant: Archibald Jacob Gumede and 5 Others; Appellant: Minister of Law and Order; Respondent: Edith Gumede and 6 Others
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 1986
Case Number
22/86
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Urgent Application
Outcome
Appeals in the first and second matters upheld; detention notices declared invalid. Appeal in the third matter dismissed.
Judges
Rabie, Trengove, Hoexter, Botha, Van Heerden
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Detention Without Trial, Ministerial Discretion, Audi Alteram Partem, Internal Security Act
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Detention Without Trial Ministerial Discretion Audi Alteram Partem Internal Security 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Curtis Ephraim Nkondo and 7 Others

Appellant

Minister of Law and Order and Another

Respondent

Archibald Jacob Gumede and 5 Others

Appellant

Minister of Law and Order

Appellant

Edith Gumede and 6 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister's statements accompanying detention notices complied with section 28(3)(b) of the Internal Security Act, 1982.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to provide adequate reasons rendered the detention notices invalid.
  3. 3 Whether the information supplied by the Minister constituted 'reasons' or 'information' as required by the statute.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Minister's statements accompanying the detention notices did not comply with section 28(3)(b) of the Internal Security Act, 1982. The statements merely repeated the statutory grounds for detention and failed to provide substantive reasons for the decision. The purpose of requiring reasons is to enable the detained person to make meaningful representations to the Minister, as envisaged by section 28(9). Merely informing the person of the statutory ground does not satisfy this requirement. The Court relied on the interpretation of 'reasons' in Sachs v Minister of Justice, 1934 AD 11, which held that reasons must be the basis for the conclusion, not a restatement of...

Court Disposition

Appeals in the first and second matters upheld; detention notices declared invalid. Appeal in the third matter dismissed.

Orders

  • In the first appeal, the detention orders issued by the Respondent against the Applicants are declared invalid.
  • The Respondent is to pay the Applicants' costs, including the costs of two counsel in the first appeal.