South Africa Case Law

Obi v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (038699/2025)

Obi v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (038699/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 408 (30 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

038699/2025

Judge

Strijdom

The court found that the applicant failed to establish the requisites for an interim interdict. The applicant's detention in C-Max was in accordance with the Correctional Services Act, regulations, and Standard Operating Procedures, which permit segregation for up to 12 to 18 months. The applicant had not exceeded this period, and no exceptional circumstances warranted his release. The conditions described did not amount to unlawful solitary confinement, and the applicant's rights were not shown to be infringed on substantial grounds. The balance of convenience favoured the respondents, as gr…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Prisoner Rights
• Interim Interdict
• Solitary Confinement
• Section 35 Bill Of Rights
• Correctional Services Act

Rathete v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (0000429/2025)

Rathete v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (0000429/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 21 (13 January 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

0000429/2025

Judge

Wilson

The High Court removed an urgent application from the roll because the correctional services respondents had not been properly served and had no chance to answer.

• Compassionate Release
• Temporary Interdict
• Correctional Services Act
• Service Of Process
• Compassionate-release
• Service-of-process

Malatji v Head of Prison Female Centre: Department of Correctional Services and Another (21/54146)

Malatji v Head of Prison Female Centre: Department of Correctional Services and Another (21/54146) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1181 (18 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/54146

Judge

D Mahon

The High Court dismissed an urgent application to compel parole consideration, finding the prisoner had not met the minimum detention period or parole procedures.

• Parole Eligibility
• Correctional Services Act
• Judicial Review
• Premature Application
• Parole-eligibility
• Correctional-services-act

Mahlangu v Minister Correctional Services and Others (2024/00413)

Mahlangu v Minister Correctional Services and Others (2024/00413) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1099 (25 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/00413

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The court found that the respondents had complied with the requirements of the Correctional Services Act and the Therapeutic Diet Manual by providing the applicant with a high-fibre diet, specifically sorghum porridge. There was insufficient evidence to establish contempt of the previous court order. However, the applicant's ongoing health complaints warranted further medical assessment. The court determined that the appropriate course was to order a consultation with a dietician, who could make a formal recommendation regarding the applicant's dietary needs. The court declined to order that…

Source excerpt

• Right To Healthcare
• Adequate Nutrition
• Contempt Of Court
• Correctional Services Act
• Prisoners Rights

Vundisa v Kimberley Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (1969/2022)

Vundisa v Kimberley Correctional Supervision and Parole Board (1969/2022) [2024] ZANCHC 28 (28 March 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1969/2022

Judges

Tlaletsi, Tyuthuza

The High Court dismissed a review of a parole-board decision, finding parole had been withdrawn on 11 October 2021 within the statutory period and not in bad faith.

• Parole Revocation
• Procedural Fairness
• Bad Faith Review
• Correctional Services Act
• Internal Remedies
• Parole-revocation

Mbatha v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (5876/2022)

Mbatha v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (5876/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 269 (15 March 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

5876/2022

Judge

Ally AJ

The Court found that the Minister's decision to deny parole was an administrative act subject to review under PAJA. The Minister failed to apply his mind to the recommendation of the National Council for Correctional Services and did not provide rational reasons for the denial. The absence of an affidavit from the Minister and reliance on hearsay evidence further undermined the rationality and lawfulness of the decision. The Court held that the denial of parole was irrational and unlawful, infringing the principle of legality. The relief seeking substitution was abandoned, and the appropriate…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Parole Eligibility
• Rationality Review
• Correctional Services Act
• Principle Of Legality

Ndhlovu v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (038179/2022)

Ndhlovu v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (038179/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 24 (17 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

038179/2022

Judge

MIA

The court dismissed a prisoner's review application after finding he had not exhausted internal remedies and had not placed a proper evidentiary record before court.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Internal Remedies Exhaustion
• Procedural Fairness
• Disciplinary Enquiry
• Correctional Services Act
• Internal-remedies

Mankhili v Johannesburg Prison (Sun City Prison) and Others (2022/19104)

Mankhili v Johannesburg Prison (Sun City Prison) and Others (2022/19104) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1077 (27 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/19104

Judge

M.C. Maubane

The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to stop a prisoner transfer, finding written notice, medical clearance, and compliance with section 43.

• Correctional Services Act
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Urgent Interdict
• Internal Remedies
• Judicial Review
• Prison-transfer

Potgieter v Head of Correctional Centre Modderbee and Others (2023-049795)

Potgieter v Head of Correctional Centre Modderbee and Others (2023-049795) [2023] ZAGPJHC 584 (26 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-049795

Judge

GC Wright

The High Court removed an urgent compassionate-leave application from the roll because the National Prosecuting Authority had not been joined. Costs were awarded against the applicant.

• Joinder
• Compassionate Leave
• Correctional Services Act
• Urgent Interdict
• Compassionate-leave
• Correctional-services-act

Jacobs v S (A 190/2022)

Jacobs v S (A 190/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 23 (10 February 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A 190/2022

Judges

Wille, Thulare

The High Court upheld a sentence appeal, set aside life imprisonment for rape and attempted rape, and imposed 20 years’ direct imprisonment instead.

• Rape
• Minimum Sentencing Regime
• Substantial And Compelling Circumstances
• Mitigating Factors
• Gender Based Violence
• Correctional Services Act