Ntembeko and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2970/2009) [2010] ZAECGHC 118 (2 December 2010)

Ntembeko and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2970/2009) [2010] ZAECGHC 118 (2 December 2010)

The applicants failed to establish a clear right to compel the Department of Correctional Services to implement the Vukani Development Drive Project. The White Paper is a policy document and does not impose an obligation on the Department to implement inmate-initiated programmes. Sections 16(1) and 37(a) of the Correctional Services Act vest discretion in the Department regarding the form and content of development programmes, subject to available resources. The Department's refusal to implement the project was based on legitimate resource constraints and policy considerations, which fall within the executive domain. There was no evidence that the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or...

Citation
[2010] ZAECGHC 118
Parties
Applicant: Nqapela Ntembeko; Applicant: Sijadu Zalisile; Applicant: Mncewukana Banqile; Applicant: Sambu Gcobani; Applicant: Kabane Mahlubi; Applicant: Sikwesy Siyabulela; Respondent: Minister of Correctional Services; Respondent: Commissioner of Correctional Services; Respondent: Head of Centre: Mdantsane Correctional Centre; Respondent: Head of Development and Care, Mdantsane Correctional Services
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2010
Case Number
2970/2009
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Smith
Legal Topics
Mandatory Interdict, Discretion of Public Authorities, Skills Development in Correctional Services, White Paper on Correctional Services, Separation of Powers
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Mandatory Interdict Discretion of Public Authorities Skills Development in Correctional Services White Paper on Correctional Services Separation of Powers

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nqapela Ntembeko

Applicant

Sijadu Zalisile

Applicant

Mncewukana Banqile

Applicant

Sambu Gcobani

Applicant

Kabane Mahlubi

Applicant

Sikwesy Siyabulela

Applicant

Minister of Correctional Services

Respondent

Commissioner of Correctional Services

Respondent

Head of Centre: Mdantsane Correctional Centre

Respondent

Head of Development and Care, Mdantsane Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to compel the Department of Correctional Services to implement the Vukani Development Drive Project.
  2. 2 Whether the Department's refusal to implement the project is arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established a clear right to the relief sought under the Correctional Services Act and the White Paper.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a clear right to compel the Department of Correctional Services to implement the Vukani Development Drive Project. The White Paper is a policy document and does not impose an obligation on the Department to implement inmate-initiated programmes. Sections 16(1) and 37(a) of the Correctional Services Act vest discretion in the Department regarding the form and content of development programmes, subject to available resources. The Department's refusal to implement the project was based on legitimate resource constraints and policy considerations, which fall within the executive domain. There was no evidence that the decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.