Minister van Wet en Orde v Matshoba (102/88) [1989] ZASCA 129; [1990] 1 All SA 425 (A) (29 September 1989)

Minister van Wet en Orde v Matshoba (102/88) [1989] ZASCA 129; [1990] 1 All SA 425 (A) (29 September 1989)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's founding affidavit was sufficient to place the burden on the Minister to justify the lawfulness of his detention at Victor Verster prison. The Minister failed to provide evidence of lawful authority for the respondent's transfer and continued detention at Victor Verster, as the only detention order produced related to Worcester prison. The regulations required specific compliance for transfer and continued detention, which was not shown. The respondent was entitled to challenge the lawfulness of his detention generally, not only under regulation 3(1). The court rejected the Minister's argument that the only appropriate relief was...

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 129
Parties
Appellant: Minister van Wet en Orde; Respondent: Shepard Matshoba
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 1989
Case Number
102/88
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order in Application Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of applications for leave to appeal.
Judges
Corbett, Botha, Grosskopf, Milne, Eksteen
Legal Topics
Detention Without Trial, Burden of Proof, Emergency Regulations, Personal Liberty
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Detention Without Trial Burden of Proof Emergency Regulations Personal Liberty

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister van Wet en Orde

Appellant

Shepard Matshoba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Order in Application Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's detention at Victor Verster prison was lawfully justified under the emergency regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the Minister discharged the burden of proof to justify the legality of the respondent's continued detention.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's founding affidavit limited the grounds of challenge to detention under regulation 3(1) only.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's founding affidavit was sufficient to place the burden on the Minister to justify the lawfulness of his detention at Victor Verster prison. The Minister failed to provide evidence of lawful authority for the respondent's transfer and continued detention at Victor Verster, as the only detention order produced related to Worcester prison. The regulations required specific compliance for transfer and continued detention, which was not shown. The respondent was entitled to challenge the lawfulness of his detention generally, not only under regulation 3(1). The court rejected the Minister's argument that the only appropriate relief was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of applications for leave to appeal.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including costs arising from applications for leave to appeal in this court and the court a quo.