South Africa Case Law

Langa v Minister of Correctional Services (2025/030684)

Langa v Minister of Correctional Services (2025/030684) [2025] ZAGPPHC 513 (26 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025/030684

Judge

D J Wilson

The court held that, except in exceptional circumstances, it is inappropriate to remove a lay litigant's urgent application from the roll without first ascertaining the nature of the complaint and determining its urgency. In cases involving incarcerated individuals, the court must exercise heightened scrutiny due to the vulnerability of applicants and the seriousness of claims relating to liberty or detention conditions. The absence of any response from the Minister of Correctional Services was found to be unacceptable, and the Department's failure to facilitate the applicants' attendance at…

Source excerpt

• Right To Liberty
• Parole Eligibility
• Urgent Application Procedure
• Case Management
• Judicial Supervision

Nyamakazi v Head of Modderbee Correctional Centre- Ms Masuku and Others (2024-096156)

Nyamakazi v Head of Modderbee Correctional Centre- Ms Masuku and Others (2024-096156) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1280 (3 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-096156

Judge

Khashane La M Manamela

The High Court dismissed an inmate’s urgent application challenging sentence computation, remission eligibility, and parole-related relief as barred by res judicata.

• Res Judicata
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Computation Of Sentence
• Parole Eligibility
• Special Remission
• Urgent Application

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

Ntuli v S (A22/2024)

Ntuli v S (A22/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 916 (13 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A22/2024

Judges

R B Mkhabela, M V Noko

The High Court partially upheld an appeal against sentence, finding the trial court failed to consider 3.5 years in custody. The total sentence was reduced to 26 years.

• Sentencing Discretion
• Minimum Sentence Legislation
• Concurrent And Consecutive Sentences
• Parole Eligibility
• Attempted Murder Of Police Officer
• Criminal-sentencing

Msibi v S (83/2000)

Msibi v S (83/2000) [2024] ZAFSHC 258 (26 August 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

83/2000

Judge

JP Daffue

The High Court granted condonation and leave to appeal against sentence, finding reasonable prospects that the 40-year murder sentence may be reconsidered.

• Condonation
• Leave To Appeal
• Sentencing
• Parole Eligibility
• Leave-to-appeal
• Criminal-procedure

Nyamakazi v Head of Modderbee Correctional Centre and Others (2024-060382)

Nyamakazi v Head of Modderbee Correctional Centre and Others (2024-060382) [2024] ZAGPPHC 779 (5 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-060382

Judge

C J van der Westhuizen

The High Court dismissed an urgent application for an order declaring the applicant eligible for a presidential special remission under Circular 4 of 2023.

• Special Remission Of Sentence
• Urgent Application Procedure
• Parole Eligibility
• Presidential Amnesty
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Urgent-application

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

Boshego v Correction Supervision and Parole Board: Kgosi Mampuru II and Others

Boshego v Correction Supervision and Parole Board: Kgosi Mampuru II and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 409; 40175/2021 (7 June 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

40175/2021

Judge

G Nel

The court found that the Parole Board erred in its methodology for calculating the applicant's minimum detention period. The correct approach, supported by the wording of the Circular and judicial precedent, is to deduct the special remission period from the effective sentence before determining the minimum detention period. The applicant's calculation, resulting in a minimum detention period expiring on 1 March 2025, was accepted as correct. The Parole Board's refusal to consider the applicant for parole was set aside, and the Board was ordered to consider her application afresh, acknowledgi…

Source excerpt

• Parole Eligibility
• Remission Of Sentence
• Special Parole Dispensation
• Minimum Detention Period
• Judicial Review
• Costs Order

Chologi v Chairperson: Correctional Supervision and Parole Board and Another (048802/2022)

Chologi v Chairperson: Correctional Supervision and Parole Board and Another (048802/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1003 (12 December 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

048802/2022

Judge

Mudau

The court found that the applicant's eligibility for parole must be determined in accordance with the Correctional Services Act 8 of 1959, as the offences were committed prior to the promulgation of the harsher parole regime. The Parole Board's reliance on the non-parole period imposed at sentencing was unlawful, as it amounted to retrospective application of a more severe punishment, contrary to constitutional principles and the authority of Phaahla. The respondents failed to provide adequate written reasons for their decision, and their assertions regarding pending cases and eligibility wer…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Parole Eligibility
• Non Parole Period
• Retrospective Punishment
• Constitutional Rights

S v Khasibe (CCD18/2022)

S v Khasibe (CCD18/2022) [2022] ZAKZPHC 43 (30 August 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

CCD18/2022

Judge

Bezuidenhout

The court sentenced the accused to life imprisonment for the murder of his intimate partner, finding no substantial and compelling circumstances to depart from the minimum sentence.

• Murder
• Minimum Sentencing
• Gender Based Violence
• Femicide
• Parole Eligibility
• Minimum-sentencing