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

Ngwenya v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2023/04233)

Ngwenya v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2023/04233) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1153 (8 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/04233

Judge

Du Plessis

The court found that the confiscation of the applicant's laptop was unlawful because the indemnity signed only permitted confiscation of the modem, not the laptop, and no policy or regulation was cited to justify the laptop's removal. The disciplinary hearing was procedurally defective: the applicant was not properly informed, did not receive written reasons, and was penalised twice for the same alleged offence, contrary to the Mandela Rules. The disciplinary charge of 'misuse of computer' is not a listed infringement under s 23 of the Correctional Services Act, and the evidence relied upon w…

Source excerpt

• Prisoner Rights
• Disciplinary Procedure
• Right To Education
• Mandela Rules
• Internal Remedies Exhaustion

Ndlhlovu v Head of Case Management Committee and Others (2024/00410)

Ndlhlovu v Head of Case Management Committee and Others (2024/00410) [2024] ZAGPJHC 919 (13 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/00410

Judge

Du Plessis

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

• Equality And Dignity
• Xenophobia And Nationality Discrimination
• Protection Of Harassment Act
• Intimidation Act
• Prisoner Rights
• Parole Procedure

West v Min of Correctional Services & others (3789/2020)

West v Min of Correctional Services & others (3789/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 145 (15 April 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3789/2020

Judge

Parks, AJ

The applicant failed to establish a right to be transferred under section 43(1) of the Correctional Services Act, as the section requires consideration of accommodation, security, and programme availability, and the applicant is serving a life sentence with parole eligibility only after 25 years. The transfer to Mangaung Correctional Centre was justified by his security classification and the availability of accommodation, especially given overcrowding in Gauteng facilities. The applicant did not exhaust available administrative remedies for transfer requests and complaints. The alleged infri…

Source excerpt

• Correctional Services Act
• Prisoner Rights
• Mandamus
• Transfer Of Inmates
• Constitutional Limitations

Wardle v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (1027/2020)

Wardle v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (1027/2020) [2021] ZAECPEHC 8 (2 February 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1027/2020

Judge

Ronaasen

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a factual basis for the relief sought. The respondents provided credible and corroborated evidence that the applicant was not denied access to the tuck shop or public telephones, and that any confiscations were justified and properly recorded. The applicant's version was found to be inherently improbable and unsupported by objective evidence. The court applied the Plascon Evans rule, resolving factual disputes in favour of the respondents, and concluded that the applicant had not made out a case for an interim interdict or any of the reli…

Source excerpt

• Prisoner Rights
• Covid19 Regulations
• Interim Interdict
• Search And Seizure

Pretorius and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (2016/83909)

Pretorius and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (2016/83909) [2018] ZAGPPHC 347; 2018 (2) SACR 501 (GP) (14 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2016/83909

Judge

Swanepoel

The court found that the policy prohibiting the use of personal computers in prison cells for study purposes constitutes unfair discrimination against the applicants under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. The respondents failed to provide sufficient factual justification for the limitation, as no evidence was presented of actual security breaches resulting from the use of computers in cells. The applicants' right to further education is protected by the Constitution, and the limitation imposed by the policy is not reasonable or proportionate, especially g…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Discrimination
• Right To Education
• Limitation Of Rights
• Prisoner Rights
• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act

Emomotimi and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (40959/2014)

Emomotimi and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (40959/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 144 (27 February 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

40959/2014

Judge

N M Mavundla

The court held that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to have the first applicant returned to Pretoria or reinstated to A-group status. The Correctional Services Act empowers the respondents to transfer inmates based on security and facility requirements, and the first applicant was classified as a high-security risk. The applicants did not exhaust internal remedies before seeking judicial intervention, as required by law. The urgency claimed was lost when the initial urgent application was withdrawn. The respondents' version regarding security risk and available medical treatm…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Administrative Action
• Prisoner Rights
• Mandamus
• Internal Remedies Exhaustion

Bester v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (64018/09)

Bester v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (64018/09) [2012] ZAGPPHC 318 (28 November 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64018/09

Judge

Msimeki M.W

The court dismissed a review of a parole decision, holding that the Parole Board had considered the matter and that no basis existed to substitute its decision.

• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action
• Parole Decision
• Reasonableness Standard
• Prisoner Rights
• Administrative-law
• Judicial-review

Hans and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (188/2012)

Hans and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (188/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 63 (29 March 2012)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

188/2012

Judge

J.P. Daffue

The court dismissed inmates’ urgent application for phone access, protection from alleged mistreatment, business chequebook use, and prison transfers, with costs.

• Correctional Services Act
• Interim Relief
• Access To Court
• Prisoner Rights
• Costs Award
• Prisoner-rights

Mvoko and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2874/11, 2875/11)

Mvoko and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2874/11, 2875/11) [2011] ZAECMHC 24; 2012 (1) SACR 472 (ECM) (2 December 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2874/11, 2875/11

Judge

Griffiths

The court held that the applicants were classified as high-risk inmates with a history of escape and serious pending charges, justifying the use of mechanical restraints and prison clothing during their testimony. The Correctional Services Act provides for reasonable limitations on prisoners' rights in the interests of security and safety. The belly chain restraint was found to be less restrictive than traditional handcuffs and did not unduly prejudice the applicants' ability to testify or their dignity. The clothing was necessary for identification and security, and its use did not create un…

Source excerpt

• Mechanical Restraints
• Prisoner Rights
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Fair Trial Rights
• Security Classification