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
Maifadi v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (037393/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 169 (25 February 2025)
The High Court ordered the Minister of Correctional Services to pay the costs of a contempt application after late compliance with a parole-related court order.
Ndlhlovu v Head of Case Management Committee and Others (2024/00410) [2024] ZAGPJHC 919 (13 September 2024)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of harassment, intimidation, or unlawful discrimination by the respondents. The applicant's allegations regarding his classification as an immigrant and his parole status were not supported by documentary proof or affidavits confirming the unlawfulness of his detention or classification. The respondents' version, supported by official records and disciplinary findings, prevailed. The court ordered verification of the applicant's identity document and directed that, if confirmed as valid, his nationality be correctly refl…
Source excerpt
Moodley v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (21/53385) [2023] ZAGPJHC 260 (24 March 2023)
The court found that the respondents' failure to provide certain directives and regulations referenced in the Parole Board Manual did not amount to contempt of the 15 December 2022 order, as these documents were not specifically mentioned in the order and the breach, if any, was technical rather than wilful. The absence of a new social worker's report did not constitute non-compliance, as the order only required necessary reports to be completed, and the applicant had already received the updated report. The court held that the parole hearing could proceed, provided the applicant is given imm…
Source excerpt
Hewitt v Minister , Department of Correctional Services and Others (343/2020) [2020] ZAECPEHC 46 (1 December 2020)
The court found that while the applicant's founding papers made out a case for urgent relief, the Department's answering papers demonstrated that it was actively addressing the parole process and that the delay was not unreasonable in the circumstances. The applicant's own conduct contributed to the delay, and the Department's omission at the initial parole hearing was a bona fide error rather than wilful disregard for the law. The relief obtained in the settlement reflected what the Department was already obliged to do and did not amount to substantial success warranting a costs award. Apply…
Source excerpt
Bhalithafa v Minister of Correctional Services (1166/2013) [2015] ZAECMHC 46 (9 April 2015)
The court held that the plaintiff's release on parole was not authorised by the Commissioner or Minister as required by the Correctional Services Act, 1959. The necessary report and recommendations from the parole board were not submitted, and the condition of compliance with the restorative justice program was not fulfilled. The plaintiff's release was therefore unlawful, and his re-arrest was necessary to ensure he continued serving his sentence. The re-arrest was lawful under section 42(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977, as the plaintiff had been convicted of Schedule 1 offences. T…
Source excerpt
Explore more
