South Africa Case Law

Catholic Bishops Publishing Company (Association Incorporated Under s21) v State President of the Republic of South Africa and Another (168/89)

Catholic Bishops Publishing Company (Association Incorporated Under s21) v State President of the Republic of South Africa and Another (168/89) [1989] ZASCA 169; [1990] 2 All SA 58 (A) (1 December 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

168/89

Judges

Corbett, Hoexter, Nestadt, Steyn, F H Grosskopf

The Appellate Division upheld emergency media regulations, finding them intra vires and the Minister’s notices and procedures sufficiently compliant.

• Delegated Legislation
• Ultra Vires
• Emergency Regulations
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Grounds Vs Reasons
• Ministerial Discretion

Minister van Wet en Orde v Matshoba (102/88)

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

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

102/88

Judges

Corbett, Botha, Grosskopf, Milne, Eksteen

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 reg…

Source excerpt

• Detention Without Trial
• Burden Of Proof
• Emergency Regulations
• Personal Liberty

Minister of Law and Order, Kwandebele and Others v Mathebe and Another (156/88)

Minister of Law and Order, Kwandebele and Others v Mathebe and Another (156/88) [1989] ZASCA 126; [1990] 4 All SA 98 (AD) (29 September 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

156/88

Judges

Corbett, Van Heerden, Smalberger, Kumleben, F H Grosskopf

The court held that members of the KwaNdebele police force, established under the KwaNdebele Police Act, have powers and duties limited to the territorial boundaries of KwaNdebele. The Emergency Regulations did not clearly extend their powers of arrest beyond these boundaries. The policemen who arrested the detainees in Johannesburg acted only as members of the KwaNdebele police force and not in any dual capacity. The onus was on the appellants to prove lawful authority for the arrest, which they failed to do. Since the arrest was unlawful, the subsequent detention in KwaNdebele was also unla…

Source excerpt

• Territorial Jurisdiction
• Emergency Regulations
• Unlawful Arrest
• Unlawful Detention

Minister of Law and Order and Another v Parker (1/89)

Minister of Law and Order and Another v Parker (1/89) [1989] ZASCA 1; [1989] 2 All SA 246 (A) (24 February 1989)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1/89

Judges

Joubert, Hefer, Vivier, Steyn, Viljoen

The court held that Parker’s arrest under emergency regulations was lawful because he was caught printing subversive pamphlets and knew why he was detained.

• Emergency Regulations
• Unlawful Arrest
• Onus Of Proof
• Common Law Arrest Principles
• Unlawful-arrest
• Emergency-regulations

Staatspresident van Republiek van Suid-Afrika and Others v United Democratic Front and Another (204/87)

Staatspresident van Republiek van Suid-Afrika and Others v United Democratic Front and Another (204/87) [1988] ZASCA 90; [1988] 2 All SA 631 (A); (13 September 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

204/87

Judges

Rabie, Van Heerden, Hefer, Grosskopf, Vivier

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State President was empowered under the Public Safety Act to issue regulations restricting the publication of information about restricted gatherings, even if such gatherings were lawful subject to conditions. The Court found that the purpose of these restrictions was to prevent public disorder and maintain safety during a state of emergency, and that the method chosen—limiting publicity through certain media—was within the discretion granted by the Act. The Court disagreed with the lower court's finding that such regulations were ultra vires simply b…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires
• Delegation Of Powers
• Vagueness
• Emergency Regulations
• Freedom Of Expression

Nkwentsha v Minister of Law and Order, Republic of South Africa and Another (554/86)

Nkwentsha v Minister of Law and Order, Republic of South Africa and Another (554/86) [1988] ZASCA 33; [1988] 2 All SA 420 (A) (30 March 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

554/86

Judges

Rabie, Van Heerden, Hefer, Grosskopf, Vivier

Regulation 3(10) of the emergency regulations does not preclude a detainee from giving viva voce evidence in court. The phrase 'no person shall have access to any person detained' does not apply to the situation where a detainee is produced in court and is under the control of the presiding judge. The court retains jurisdiction to determine the legality of detention, and its inherent powers and Rule 6(5)(g) empower it to order the production of a detainee for oral evidence when necessary for a just and expeditious decision. The security authorities are capable of ensuring the detainee's conti…

Source excerpt

• Emergency Regulations
• Habeas Corpus
• Court Inherent Jurisdiction
• Access To Detainees
• Viva Voce Evidence

Minister of Law and Order and Another v Dempsey (12/1988)

Minister of Law and Order and Another v Dempsey (12/1988) [1988] ZASCA 12; [1988] 2 All SA 278 (A) (11 March 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

12/1988

Judges

Rabie, Joubert, Viljoen, Hefer, Nestadt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the onus to justify an arrest under emergency regulations lies on the party who made the arrest, but once it is shown that the functionary formed the required opinion, the burden shifts to the applicant to prove that the opinion was improperly formed. In this case, Captain Oosthuizen's affidavit established that he formed the necessary opinion under Regulation 3(1). The respondent failed to provide evidence that the opinion was improperly formed, relying instead on general allegations and choosing not to cross-examine or lead oral evidence. The court foun…

Source excerpt

• Emergency Regulations
• Detention Without Trial
• Burden Of Proof
• Judicial Review Of Discretion
• Jurisdictional Facts

Apleni v Minister of Law and Order and Others (436/86)

Apleni v Minister of Law and Order and Others (436/86) [1987] ZASCA 135 (26 November 1987)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

436/86

Judges

Rabie, Viljoen, Hefer, Grosskopf, Vivier

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the court a quo erred in refusing to refer the applications for oral evidence and grant interim interdicts. Regulation 3(10) does not categorically bar detainees from giving oral evidence if ministerial consent is or may be granted, and there was no evidence that such consent would be refused. The absence of medical evidence from respondents and the unsatisfactory nature of their replies strengthened the appellants' case. Interim interdicts, although final in effect during detention, do not finally determine the parties' rights and are permissible pending…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Emergency Regulations
• Public Safety Act
• Referral To Oral Evidence