South Africa Case Law

Centre for Child Law and Others v South African Council for Educators and Others (61630/2020)

Centre for Child Law and Others v South African Council for Educators and Others (61630/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 787 (13 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61630/2020

Judge

D S Fourie

The court found that the applicants failed to institute review proceedings within a reasonable time, and their explanation for the delay was inadequate. The absence of reasons from the administrator did not justify the lengthy delay, as applicants could have proceeded under Rule 53 and supplemented their papers. The interests of justice, including finality and the potential prejudice to the educators, weighed against granting condonation. Accordingly, the relief sought in prayers 1 to 5 was refused. However, the court held that the revised mandatory sanctions policy adopted in June 2020 did n…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Child Participation
• Corporal Punishment
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Best Interests Of Child
• Rehabilitative Sanctions

SRHC v SSC (43989/2014)

SRHC v SSC (43989/2014) [2021] ZAGPJHC 812 (14 December 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

43989/2014

Judge

A A Crutchfield

The High Court dismissed a father's application to appoint a forensic social worker and bar corporal punishment, finding the evidence unreliable and no basis to vary parenting arrangements.

• Children's Act
• Parental Care And Contact
• Variation Of Settlement Agreement
• Interim Interdict
• Corporal Punishment
• Best Interests Of Child

Mbele and Another v Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development and Another (1116/2013)

Mbele and Another v Minister of Justice & Constitutional Development and Another (1116/2013) [2015] ZANWHC 17 (18 June 2015)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1116/2013

Judges

A M Kgoele, Samkelo Gura

The court found that there are no reasonable prospects of success for an appeal against the review court's dismissal of the application to set aside the Minister's decision to extradite the applicants. The Botswana High Court's Tapela judgment ensures that non-citizen inmates, including the applicants, will receive necessary HIV treatment, addressing the health concerns raised. The Minister's decision was not tainted by incorrect information, as he relied on multiple sources and constitutional principles. The risk of corporal punishment was adequately considered, and the likely sentence for t…

Source excerpt

• Extradition
• Right To Health
• Corporal Punishment
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Hiv Discrimination

Shange v MEC for Education, Kwazulu-Natal (15860/08)

Shange v MEC for Education, Kwazulu-Natal (15860/08) [2013] ZAKZDHC 32 (17 May 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

15860/08

Judge

Pillay

The court found the plaintiff was struck in the eye by a deputy principal's belt and awarded damages for loss of earnings, medical costs, and general damages.

• Personal Injury
• Quantum Of Damages
• Vicarious Liability
• Corporal Punishment
• Loss Of Earnings
• Delict

S v Khanyisile and Another (CA 12/2012)

S v Khanyisile and Another (CA 12/2012) [2012] ZANWHC 35 (19 July 2012)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

CA 12/2012

Judges

A A Landman, R D Hendricks

The court held that Botswana is a 'foreign state' under the Extradition Act, as the Treaty between South Africa and Botswana does not provide for reciprocal endorsement of warrants required for 'associated state' status. The magistrate correctly conducted the inquiry under section 10. Concerns regarding corporal punishment, medical care, non-discrimination, and legal representation are not matters for the magistrate under section 10, but for the Minister of Justice to consider under section 11. The Southern African Development Community Protocol on Extradition provides additional safeguards,…

Source excerpt

• Extradition Act
• Judicial Precedent
• Constitutional Rights
• Corporal Punishment
• Sadc Protocol On Extradition

S v Mlotshwa (A972/2007)

S v Mlotshwa (A972/2007) [2009] ZAGPPHC 64 (4 March 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A972/2007

Judges

Webster, Phatudi

The High Court dismissed an appeal against extradition to Botswana, upholding the transfer of proceedings, document authentication, and the extradition order.

• Extradition Act
• Jurisdiction Of Magistrate
• Authentication Of Documents
• Corporal Punishment
• Human Rights Protection
• Extradition

MEC for Education Department: Limpopo v Sebetha (JA39/2006)

MEC for Education Department: Limpopo v Sebetha (JA39/2006) [2008] ZALAC 20 (28 February 2008)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA39/2006

Judges

Davis, Jappie, Leeuw

The Labour Appeal Court dismissed a late appeal for condonation, despite finding the educator’s dismissal for assaulting a six-year-old pupil was justified.

• Condonation For Late Filing
• Disciplinary Dismissal
• Corporal Punishment
• Employment Of Educators Act
• Condonation-for-late-filing
• Disciplinary-dismissal

Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education (CCT4/00)

Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education (CCT4/00) [2000] ZACC 11; 2000 (4) SA 757; 2000 (10) BCLR 1051 (18 August 2000)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT4/00

Judges

Sachs, Chaskalson, Langa, Goldstone, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Yacoob, Cameron

The Constitutional Court upheld a ban on corporal punishment in schools, holding that the limit on religious practice was reasonable and justifiable.

• Freedom Of Religion
• Children's Rights
• Corporal Punishment
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Education Policy
• Reasonable And Justifiable Limitation

Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education (CCT13/98)

Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education (CCT13/98) [1998] ZACC 16; 1999 (2) SA 83; 1998 (12) BCLR 1449 (14 October 1998)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT13/98

Judges

Langa DP, Chaskalson P, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J

The Constitutional Court refused direct access, holding that the applicant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying departure from ordinary procedures. The Court emphasized that direct access is reserved for extraordinary cases and that the High Courts and Supreme Court of Appeal have constitutional jurisdiction to determine the validity of legislation. The urgency claimed by the applicant was not substantiated, as the Act had been in force for eighteen months without evidence of irreparable harm or breakdown of discipline. The Court found that the exclusion of other courts…

Source excerpt

• Direct Access
• Constitutionality Of Legislation
• Corporal Punishment
• Freedom Of Religion
• Independent Schools
• Urgency And Public Interest

S v Williams and Others (CCT20/94)

S v Williams and Others (CCT20/94) [1995] ZACC 6; 1995 (3) SA 632 ; 1995 (7) BCLR 861 (CC) (9 June 1995)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT20/94

Judges

Langa, Chaskalson, Ackermann, Didcott, Kentridge, Kriegler, Madala, Mahomed, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs

Section 294 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which authorises juvenile whipping, violates sections 10 and 11(2) of the Constitution by subjecting juveniles to cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment. The deliberate infliction of physical pain by the State, regardless of age, is incompatible with respect for human dignity and cannot be justified by resource constraints, deterrence, or retribution. The limitation imposed by section 294 is not reasonable, justifiable, or necessary in an open and democratic society. There are sufficient alternative sentencing options available, and the practice of…

Source excerpt

• Cruel Inhuman Or Degrading Punishment
• Juvenile Justice
• Limitation Of Rights
• Human Dignity
• Sentencing Options
• Corporal Punishment