Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Abadiga v Minister of Defence and Military Veterans and Others (2023/018570) [2023] ZAGPJHC 355 (20 April 2023)
An urgent habeas corpus application was struck from the roll because the applicant failed to explain delay and did not establish urgency in the founding affidavit.
Reyneke: In re: S v Mokoena (2232/2022), Ex parte [2022] ZAFSHC 110 (24 May 2022)
The court found that the accused's continued detention after discharge from hospital was lawful under the Criminal Procedure Act, as bail had been refused and the accused was held pending trial for serious offences. Discharge from hospital under the Mental Health Care Act does not automatically entitle an accused to release from custody; judicial oversight and proper procedure must be followed. The administrative errors in failing to issue a warrant for continued incarceration did not render the detention unlawful, as the substantive basis for detention remained valid. The application for lea…
Source excerpt
Reyneke: In re: S v Mokoena (2232/2022), Ex parte [2022] ZAFSHC 123; 2023 (2) SACR 190 (FB) (18 May 2022)
The court found that the accused's continued detention after discharge from the psychiatric hospital was lawful under the Criminal Procedure Act, as bail had been refused and the accused was awaiting trial for serious offences. The administrative errors, including the lack of a warrant for transfer to prison, did not affect the substantive legality of the detention. Discharge from hospital under the Mental Health Care Act does not equate to release from custody, and only a court order under the Criminal Procedure Act can authorize release. The application for immediate release was therefore d…
Source excerpt
Nwankwo v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Anyacho and Another v Director General: Department of Home Affairs and Another; Onwuakpa v Director General: Department of Home Affairs and Another (2021/01004; 2021/0013; 2021/0014) [2020] ZAGPJHC 377 (22 September 2020)
The court held that the continued detention of the applicants at Lindela Repatriation Centre was unlawful. The Refugees Act, specifically section 21(4), prohibits proceedings against asylum seekers pending the determination of their applications, and this protection applies regardless of the applicants' criminal convictions or lapsing of permits. The state failed to plead and prove compliance with the administrative processes required to terminate asylum or immigration status, and did not establish lawful grounds for detention under either the Refugees Act or the Immigration Act, especially i…
Source excerpt
Kgatle v Minister of Justice And Correctional Services and Others (41072/2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 515 (25 May 2016)
The High Court struck the urgent habeas corpus application from the roll, finding that the applicant had not shown sufficient urgency and had not complied with urgent application procedures.
Kgatle v Minister of Justce and Correctional Services and Others (41072.2016) [2016] ZAGPPHC 412 (25 May 2016)
The High Court struck an urgent habeas corpus application off the roll for want of urgency, holding that the applicant failed to justify shortened procedures.
Lin and Another v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd and Another (2014/22434) [2015] ZAGPJHC 245; [2016] 1 All SA 543 (GJ) (14 October 2015)
The court imposed fines for contempt after Cathay Pacific and its airport manager ignored orders to return three minor children to South Africa.
Coetzee v National Commissioner of Police and Others (70259/09) [2010] ZAGPPHC 155; 2011 (1) SACR 132 (GNP) ; 2011 (2) SA 227 (GNP) (11 October 2010)
The court found that the applicant's arrest and detention were unlawful. The alleged offences were minor and did not justify the drastic measure of arrest, especially where less invasive means such as summons or written notice would have sufficed. The SAPS and Metro Police failed to consider the applicant's constitutional rights to liberty and dignity, and did not properly exercise their discretion regarding bail. The applicant was denied bail and not brought before a court within the prescribed period, in breach of section 35 of the Constitution. The interdict de libero homine exhibendo was…
Source excerpt
Arse v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (25/2010) [2010] ZASCA 9; 2010 (7) BCLR 640 (SCA) ; [2010] 3 All SA 261 (SCA); 2012 (4) SA 544 (SCA) (12 March 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the continued detention of the appellant was unlawful. The Refugees Act and Immigration Act must be read together, and the Refugees Act specifically protects asylum seekers from detention or deportation pending the outcome of their asylum application and any review or appeal. The appellant had been detained for far longer than the maximum period permitted under the Immigration Act without a valid court warrant, and his detention had not been reviewed by a judge as required by the Refugees Act. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the appellan…
Source excerpt
Minister van Wet en Orde v Matshoba (192/1988) [1989] ZASCA 130; [1990] 1 All SA 425 (A) (29 September 1989)
The court held that in applications for release from detention, it is sufficient for the detainee to allege under oath that he is being detained against his will. This triggers the burden on the detaining authority to prove that the detention is lawful and complies with statutory requirements. The court emphasized that the protection of personal liberty is of fundamental importance and that procedural rules should not obstruct access to relief. The respondent is required to prove all jurisdictional facts justifying the detention, and the absence of such proof entitles the detainee to release.…
Source excerpt
Explore more
