South Africa Case Law

Maraba and Others v Head of Prison: Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Facility and Another (Leave to Appeal) (095695/2024)

Maraba and Others v Head of Prison: Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Facility and Another (Leave to Appeal) (095695/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1099 (23 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

095695/2024

Judge

Mooki

Leave to appeal was dismissed after the court held the prisoners’ transfers were unlawful for non-compliance with Regulation 25 and costs remained justified.

• Prisoner Transfer
• Regulation 25
• Urgency
• Costs Award
• Procedural Irregularity
• Prisoner-transfer

Maraba and Others v Head of Prison: Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Facility (095695/2024)

Maraba and Others v Head of Prison: Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Facility (095695/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1080 (23 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

095695/2024

Judge

Mooki

The High Court granted execution pending appeal, finding unlawful prisoner transfers, exceptional circumstances, and irreparable harm to the applicants.

• Execution Pending Appeal
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Irreparable Harm
• Prisoner Transfer
• Regulation 25
• Rule Of Law

S v Porritt (SS 40/2006)

S v Porritt (SS 40/2006) [2024] ZAGPJHC 180 (29 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS 40/2006

Judge

Spilg

The court found that Porritt's allegations of threats to his life and ongoing complaints about prison conditions at Johannesburg Central were sufficiently serious to warrant reconsideration of his detention location. The persistent logistical problems, including late arrivals and shortened court sessions, prejudiced both Porritt's fair trial rights and the efficient administration of justice. The court determined that transferring Porritt to Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Facility in Pretoria would alleviate these issues, allow for longer court sessions, and ensure his safety and access to medica…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Prisoner Transfer
• Judicial Independence
• Correctional Services
• Court Efficiency

Nkosi v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (1674/2021)

Nkosi v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (1674/2021) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 31 (23 July 2021)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1674/2021

Judge

H.F. Brauckmann

The High Court dismissed an unopposed application by a sentenced offender seeking transfer to Barberton Correctional Services, finding the wrong procedure was used.

• Correctional Services Act
• Prisoner Transfer
• Jurisdiction
• Constitutional Rights Of Prisoners
• Correctional-services-act
• Prisoner-transfer

Tshikane v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2014/23316)

Tshikane v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2014/23316) [2014] ZAGPJHC 261; 2015 (2) SACR 99 (GJ); [2015] 1 All SA 384 (GJ) (17 October 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2014/23316

Judge

D S S Moshidi

The court found that the respondents failed to comply with both the Correctional Services Act and its regulations, specifically by not consulting the applicant or allowing him to make representations prior to his transfer. There was no evidence that the reasons for the transfer were conveyed to the applicant, nor that he was given an opportunity to respond, as required by Regulation 25. The respondents' reliance on overcrowding did not justify bypassing procedural fairness. The applicant's constitutional rights under section 35(2) were infringed, and the audi alteram partem rule was violated.…

Source excerpt

• Audi Alteram Partem
• Prisoner Transfer
• Natural Justice
• Correctional Services Act
• Procedural Fairness

Masilela and Others v Bouwers and Others (63532/2012, 16995/2013)

Masilela and Others v Bouwers and Others (63532/2012, 16995/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 103; 2013 (2) SACR 350 (GNP) (16 April 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

63532/2012, 16995/2013

Judge

E Bertelsmann

High-risk prisoners sought urgent transfer to Johannesburg. The High Court held the request was not urgent, internal remedies were not exhausted, and dismissed both applications.

• Mandamus
• Prisoner Transfer
• Security Classification
• Internal Remedies
• Judicial Review
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Nongalo and Others v National Commissioner: Department of Correctional Services and Another (3905/2005)

Nongalo and Others v National Commissioner: Department of Correctional Services and Another (3905/2005) [2007] ZAFSHC 84 (10 May 2007)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3905/2005

Judge

Malherbe

The court found that the applicants failed to comply with the procedural requirements for review under PAJA, specifically the time limits and the exhaustion of internal remedies. Even if these procedural objections were disregarded, the application lacked merit. The applicants sought to dictate their place of detention based on personal preference, which is not permissible. The Correctional Services Act and the Constitution provide rights to prisoners, but these are subject to practical limitations such as prison capacity and security classifications. The respondents demonstrated that all tra…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Internal Remedies Exhaustion
• Prisoner Transfer
• Constitutional Rights Of Prisoners