South Africa Case Law

Langa v Minister of Correctional Services (2025/030684)

Langa v Minister of Correctional Services (2025/030684) [2025] ZAGPPHC 513 (26 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025/030684

Judge

D J Wilson

The court held that, except in exceptional circumstances, it is inappropriate to remove a lay litigant's urgent application from the roll without first ascertaining the nature of the complaint and determining its urgency. In cases involving incarcerated individuals, the court must exercise heightened scrutiny due to the vulnerability of applicants and the seriousness of claims relating to liberty or detention conditions. The absence of any response from the Minister of Correctional Services was found to be unacceptable, and the Department's failure to facilitate the applicants' attendance at…

Source excerpt

• Right To Liberty
• Parole Eligibility
• Urgent Application Procedure
• Case Management
• Judicial Supervision

detention of Ms N December in the Port Alfred Magistrates Court Cells (CA&R 207/2020), In Re

detention of Ms N December in the Port Alfred Magistrates Court Cells (CA&R 207/2020), In Re [2020] ZAECGHC 129; 2021 (1) SACR 655 (ECG) (24 November 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA&R 207/2020

Judges

J.M Roberson, T Malusi

The High Court reviewed and set aside a magistrate’s order detaining a candidate attorney in the court cells for alleged disrespect during sentencing proceedings.

• Judicial Powers
• Contempt Of Court
• Arbitrary Detention
• Right To Liberty
• Gross Irregularity
• Arbitrary-detention

Minister of Police v Dhali (CA327/2017)

Minister of Police v Dhali (CA327/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 16 (26 February 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

CA327/2017

Judges

M J Lowe, N P Jaji

The court held that the arresting officer failed to take reasonable steps to investigate the circumstances before arresting the respondent. The officer did not verify the information received, did not allow the respondent to provide an explanation, and did not check whether the respondent or his vehicle could be identified at the scene. The suspicion was not objectively sustainable, and the police failed to discharge the onus of justifying the arrest and detention. The Magistrate's factual and credibility findings were not shown to be incorrect or warrant interference. The arrest was unlawful…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Arrest
• Damages For Unlawful Detention
• Onus Of Justification
• Section 40 Criminal Procedure Act
• Right To Liberty
• Constitutional Damages

Richardson and Another v Minister of South African Police Services and Others (67943/ 2015)

Richardson and Another v Minister of South African Police Services and Others (67943/ 2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1064 (16 October 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

67943/ 2015

Judge

Mavundla

Urgent application to forestall possible arrest under a Companies Act inquiry was removed from the urgent roll because the alleged threat was too remote.

• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Companies Act Section 417 418
• Warrant Of Arrest
• Right To Liberty
• Urgency-in-motion-proceedings
• Companies-act-section-417-418