Nortje and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (213/99) [2001] ZASCA 20; [2001] 2 All SA 623 (A); 2001 (3) SA 472 (SCA); 2001 (1) SACR 514 (SCA) (16 March 2001)

Nortje and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (213/99) [2001] ZASCA 20; [2001] 2 All SA 623 (A); 2001 (3) SA 472 (SCA); 2001 (1) SACR 514 (SCA) (16 March 2001)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the decision to transfer the appellants to the C-Max section constituted a significant deprivation of privileges and triggered the legitimate expectation of procedural fairness. The audi alteram partem rule required that the appellants be given a fair opportunity to be heard before such an adverse decision was made. The respondents' argument that security concerns justified a post-decision hearing was accepted in principle, but the court found that no genuine opportunity to be heard was provided, even after the transfer. The official's visit to the appellants was not intended as a hearing, and the appellants were not informed of the case against them...

Citation
[2001] ZASCA 20
Parties
Appellant: Jano Nortje; Appellant: Casper Jacobus Kruger; Respondent: Minister of Correctional Services; Respondent: Commissioner of Correctional Services; Respondent: Head of Maximum Prison, Pretoria; Respondent: Head of C-Max Prison, Pretoria
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2001
Case Number
213/99
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The decision to transfer the appellants to the C-Max section is set aside.
Judges
Vivier, Scott, Streicher, Mpati, Brand
Legal Topics
Audi Alteram Partem, Legitimate Expectation, Prisoner Rights, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Audi Alteram Partem Legitimate Expectation Prisoner Rights Procedural Fairness

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jano Nortje

Appellant

Casper Jacobus Kruger

Appellant

Minister of Correctional Services

Respondent

Commissioner of Correctional Services

Respondent

Head of Maximum Prison, Pretoria

Respondent

Head of C-Max Prison, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision to transfer the appellants to the C-Max section of Pretoria Maximum Prison was procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of the audi alteram partem rule were complied with prior to the transfer.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants were given a legitimate opportunity to be heard before the deprivation of privileges.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the decision to transfer the appellants to the C-Max section constituted a significant deprivation of privileges and triggered the legitimate expectation of procedural fairness. The audi alteram partem rule required that the appellants be given a fair opportunity to be heard before such an adverse decision was made. The respondents' argument that security concerns justified a post-decision hearing was accepted in principle, but the court found that no genuine opportunity to be heard was provided, even after the transfer. The official's visit to the appellants was not intended as a hearing, and the appellants were not informed of the case against them...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The decision to transfer the appellants to the C-Max section is set aside.

Orders

  • The decision to transfer the appellants to the C-Max section of Pretoria Maximum Prison is set aside.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the appellants' costs.