South Africa Case Law

Savoi and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (5867/2013)

Savoi and Others v National Prosecuting Authority and Another (5867/2013) [2018] ZAKZPHC 77 (23 February 2018)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

5867/2013

Judge

Mnguni

High Court refused to compel further discovery in a permanent-stay dispute, granted condonation for late opposition, and dismissed an application to introduce further evidence.

• Discovery And Production Of Documents
• Permanent Stay Of Prosecution
• Abuse Of Prosecutorial Discretion
• Fair Trial Rights
• Condonation
• Privilege And Disclosure

Democratic Alliance v Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (19577/09)

Democratic Alliance v Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (19577/09) [2013] ZAGPPHC 242; [2013] 4 All SA 610 (GNP) (16 August 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

19577/09

Judge

Mathopo

The court held that the SCA order does not provide a blanket prohibition on the disclosure of the transcripts and related internal memoranda, reports, or minutes. Confidentiality or privilege must be specifically claimed and substantiated by the third respondent, who failed to do so. The transcripts were already in the public domain, and no compelling evidence was presented to justify their continued confidentiality. The first respondent, as an organ of state, is obliged to act transparently and cannot unilaterally determine which documents are confidential. The court ordered the production o…

Source excerpt

• Record Of Decision
• Confidentiality Of Documents
• Contempt Of Court
• Rule 6 11 Application
• Rationality Review
• Privilege And Disclosure

Nkayi and Another v Head of the Security Branch of the SA Police, Pretoria (230/91)

Nkayi and Another v Head of the Security Branch of the SA Police, Pretoria (230/91) [1993] ZASCA 2; 1993 (3) SA 244 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 97 (A) (16 February 1993)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

230/91

Judges

Corbett, Botha, Nestadt, Kumleben, Goldstone

The court held that s 29(7)(b) of the Internal Security Act does not impose a blanket prohibition on the disclosure of all information obtained from or relating to detainees. The term 'official information' must be interpreted in context and refers primarily to security information, not personal information about the health and well-being of detainees. Reports by magistrates and district surgeons arising from visits under s 29(9) may contain both types of information. Personal information relevant to the protection of detainees' rights and the administration of justice may be disclosed for us…

Source excerpt

• Internal Security Act
• Discovery Of Documents
• Privilege And Disclosure
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action