Skosana and Others v Legal Aid Board (Mafikeng) and Another (2282/2007) [2008] ZANWHC 22 (31 July 2008)

Skosana and Others v Legal Aid Board (Mafikeng) and Another (2282/2007) [2008] ZANWHC 22 (31 July 2008)

The court held that the Second Respondent (Registrar) is not statutorily obliged to provide transcribed records to the applicants at this stage, as the requirements of Rule 52 have not been met. The responsibility for obtaining and paying for records prior to leave to appeal being granted rests with the First...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] ZANWHC 22
Parties
Applicant: Mr Mandla Skosana; Respondent: The Legal Aid Board (Mafikeng)
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2008
Case Number
2282/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Legal Assistance and Provision of Court Records
Outcome
Application by Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Applicants against both Respondents dismissed; application by First, Second, and Third Applicants against Second Respondent dismissed; First Respondent ordered to decide and communicate its decision on legal representation for First, Second, and Third Applicants within thirty...
Judges
R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Right of Access to Courts, Legal Aid, Fair Trial Rights, Transcription of Records
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Right of Access to Courts Legal Aid Fair Trial Rights Transcription of Records

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Mandla Skosana

Applicant

The Legal Aid Board (Mafikeng)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Legal Assistance and Provision of Court Records

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are obliged to provide the applicants with transcribed court records prior to leave to appeal being granted.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to legal assistance at the State's expense for purposes of appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' policies and delays infringe the applicants' constitutional rights to access to courts and fair trial.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Second Respondent (Registrar) is not statutorily obliged to provide transcribed records to the applicants at this stage, as the requirements of Rule 52 have not been met. The responsibility for obtaining and paying for records prior to leave to appeal being granted rests with the First Respondent if it requires such records to assess prospects of success. The First Respondent must decide and communicate whether it will provide legal representation to the First, Second, and Third Applicants within thirty days. Applications by the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Applicants against both respondents, and by the First, Second, and Third Applicants against the Second...

Court Disposition

Application by Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Applicants against both Respondents dismissed; application by First, Second, and Third Applicants against Second Respondent dismissed; First Respondent ordered to decide and communicate its decision on legal representation for First, Second, and Third Applicants within thirty...

Orders

  • The application by the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Applicants against both Respondents is dismissed.
  • The application by the First, Second and Third Applicants as against the Second Respondent is dismissed.