South Africa Case Law

Zitha v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (2024-009755)

Zitha v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (2024-009755) [2025] ZAGPPHC 255 (17 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024-009755

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court held that the applicant did not follow the correct legal process to challenge the administrative decision, as he sought a mandamus instead of instituting review proceedings. The requirements for a final interdict, including the absence of an alternative remedy, were not met because review proceedings remained available to the applicant, subject to condonation for any delay. The court emphasized the principle of separation of powers and the lack of sufficient information regarding the applicable policies and criteria for remission. Consequently, the application was dismissed, but the…

Source excerpt

• Mandamus
• Remission Of Sentence
• Judicial Review
• Final Interdict
• Condonation

Luphondo v Minister of Justice and Another (052550-2024)

Luphondo v Minister of Justice and Another (052550-2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 648 (9 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

052550-2024

Judge

E M Kubushi

The court struck an urgent PAJA review application from the roll because it was procedurally defective, including non-service on the second respondent.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Remission Of Sentence
• Urgent Application Procedure
• Mandatory Interdict
• Service Of Process
• Urgent-application-procedure

Electoral Commission of South Africa v Umkhonto Wesizwe Political Party and Others (CCT 97/24)

Electoral Commission of South Africa v Umkhonto Wesizwe Political Party and Others (CCT 97/24) [2024] ZACC 6; 2024 (7) BCLR 869 (CC) (20 May 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 97/24

Judges

Maya, Bilchitz, Gamble, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi

Section 47(1)(e) of the Constitution applies to anyone convicted and sentenced to more than 12 months' imprisonment, regardless of whether the conviction and sentence are appealable. The proviso in section 47(1)(e) is a timing mechanism, suspending the disqualification only until all appeals are exhausted or the time for appeal has expired. Where the Constitutional Court acts as a court of first and last instance, its decisions are final and immune from appeal, and the disqualification applies immediately. Remission of sentence by the President does not alter the original sentence imposed by…

Source excerpt

• Eligibility For Public Office
• Interpretation Of Section 47 1 E
• Remission Of Sentence
• Electoral Act Objections
• Recusal Of Judges
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias

Dyakophu and Another v S (A20/2004)

Dyakophu and Another v S (A20/2004) [2024] ZAWCHC 104 (22 April 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A20/2024

Judge

M Pangarker

High Court appeal upheld bail pending appeal for two convicted appellants, finding the magistrate wrongly focused on conviction merits instead of flight risk and interests of justice.

• Bail Pending Appeal
• Flight Risk
• Prevention Of Corrupt Activities Act
• Remission Of Sentence
• Prospects Of Success On Appeal
• Bail-pending-appeal

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

Smith v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (21/35658)

Smith v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (21/35658) [2022] ZAGPJHC 60 (11 February 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/35658

Judge

Réan Strydom

The High Court reviewed and set aside a Parole Board decision that miscalculated a prisoner’s remission-based minimum detention period for Covid parole.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Remission Of Sentence
• Parole Eligibility
• Constitutional Rights
• Correctional Services Act
• Administrative-law

Nobatana and Another v Head of Rooigrond Correctional Centre and Others (72348/2012)

Nobatana and Another v Head of Rooigrond Correctional Centre and Others (72348/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 55 (6 February 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

72348/2012

Judge

Mashile

The court held that life-sentence prisoners sentenced before 1 October 2004 are considered for parole under the policy in force when sentenced, with credits under section 22A.

• Parole Eligibility
• Correctional Services Act
• Transitional Provisions
• Credits System
• Life Imprisonment
• Remission Of Sentence

Nobatana and Another v Head of Rooiground Correctional Centre and Others (72348/2012)

Nobatana and Another v Head of Rooiground Correctional Centre and Others (72348/2012) [2015] ZAGPJHC 39 (6 February 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

72348/2012

Judge

Mashile

The court held that life-sentence prisoners must be considered for parole under the policy in force when sentenced, but may obtain earlier consideration through section 22A credits.

• Parole Eligibility
• Correctional Services Act
• Transitional Provisions
• Credits System
• Remission Of Sentence
• Parole-eligibility

Baloyi v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (46475/2012)

Baloyi v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (46475/2012) [2012] ZAGPJHC 66 (19 April 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

46475/2012

Judge

Satchwell

The court held that the applicant's sentence cannot be antedated to the date of arrest, as the Correctional Services Act requires sentences to commence from the date of sentencing and any time spent in custody prior to sentencing is a matter for the trial court. The applicant's achievements in prison, while admirable, do not constitute highly meritorious service as contemplated by the Act, which requires service rendered to others or the institution. The statutory regime under the 1998 Act expressly excludes persons serving life sentences from special remission for highly meritorious service…

Source excerpt

• Correctional Services Act
• Remission Of Sentence
• Presidential Pardon
• Parole Eligibility
• Life Imprisonment
• Statutory Interpretation

Steenkamp v Commissioner of Correctional Services , Maaga and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (21018/03 , 1614/03)

Steenkamp v Commissioner of Correctional Services , Maaga and Others v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (21018/03 , 1614/03) [2005] ZAGPHC 14 (7 February 2005)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

21018/03 , 1614/03

Judges

Van der Merwe, J B Shongwe, N M Mavundla

The court held that the correct interpretation of 'date of release' in section 276A(3)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, is the actual expiry date of the sentence, less any remission granted by the State President or Commissioner, and not the date on which the prisoner becomes eligible for parole. The deeming provision in section 63(1)(b)(i) of the Correctional Services Act applies only for the purpose of recommendations by the Parole Board and does not affect the statutory meaning of 'date of release' for conversion to correctional supervision. The court found that interpreti…

Source excerpt

• Correctional Supervision
• Interpretation Of Statutes
• Parole
• Remission Of Sentence