South Africa Case Law

Society for the Protection of Our Constitution v Minister of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others (B3991/2024)

Society for the Protection of Our Constitution v Minister of Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others (B3991/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1231 (25 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B3991/2024

Judge

Neukircher

The application was premised on facts that were not substantiated. The applicant failed to disclose crucial information, relied on hearsay and media reports, and did not provide direct or expert evidence regarding the situation at Stilfontein mine. The respondents demonstrated that alternative safe exits were available, rescue operations were underway, and essential supplies were not cut off. The constitutional issues raised by the applicant were not engaged on the facts as presented. The court found that the applicant did not make out a proper case for urgent relief, and the application must…

Source excerpt

• Right To Life
• Emergency Relief
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Duty Of Full Disclosure
• Mine Rescue Operations
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation

Motsa v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (2016/19992)

Motsa v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (2016/19992) [2020] ZAGPJHC 114; 2021 (1) SACR 444 (GJ) (4 June 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2016/19992

Judge

Wepener

The court held that the Magistrate properly considered the possibility of the death penalty and relied on the undertaking provided by the Kingdom of eSwatini that, if imposed, the death penalty would not be executed. The Magistrate was not required to consider constitutional rights infringements, as that is the Minister's function. The Minister's decision was based on the first undertaking, which, although not as explicit as the second, was deemed sufficient given the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs of the Kingdom had the delegated authority to ensure commutation of any death s…

Source excerpt

• Extradition Act
• Death Penalty Extradition
• Irrationality Review
• Right To Life
• Undertaking By Foreign State
• Ministerial Discretion

Moela and Another v Habib and Another (2020/9215)

Moela and Another v Habib and Another (2020/9215) [2020] ZAGPJHC 69 (19 March 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/9215

Judge

S E Weiner

The court found that the University acted in accordance with expert advice, government strategy, and all recommended protocols from the WHO, NICD, and national authorities. The Vice-Chancellor and Dean do not have the authority or capacity to arrange mass testing for SARS COV-19, and such testing is governed by NICD protocols requiring symptoms. The relief sought by the applicants was not feasible, enforceable, or supported by law, as the applicants failed to establish any violation of their constitutional rights or a reasonable apprehension of harm. The University’s decision to close residen…

Source excerpt

• Right To Life
• Right To Health Care
• University Pandemic Response
• Urgent Interdict
• Administrative Decision Making

Chanthunya v S (4/2013)

Chanthunya v S (4/2013) [2013] ZANWHC 45 (30 May 2013)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

4/2013

Judges

Kgoele, Gutta

The court held that the magistrate, in an extradition inquiry under section 10 of the Extradition Act, is not empowered to determine the sufficiency of the assurance provided by the requesting state regarding the death penalty. The magistrate's role is limited to determining whether the person is liable to be surrendered and whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution in the foreign state. The sufficiency of the assurance is a constitutional issue that must be decided by the Minister in terms of section 11 of the Act. Although the magistrate misdirected himself by assessing th…

Source excerpt

• Extradition
• Death Penalty
• Right To Life
• Ministerial Discretion
• Sufficiency Of Assurance

S v Mathebula (A550/2012)

S v Mathebula (A550/2012) [2012] ZAGPPHC 150 (3 August 2012)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A550/2012

Judges

Tuchten, WJ van der Merwe

The magistrate's conduct during the trial, including remarks condoning police assault and inciting violence against the accused, constituted a gross and unacceptable departure from the standards required of a judicial officer. These utterances violated the accused's fundamental rights to freedom from violence and to life, as protected by the Constitution. The magistrate's actions demonstrated actual partiality and hostility, undermining the accused's right to a fair trial. As a result, the correctness of the conviction and appropriateness of the sentence are irrelevant, as the accused did not…

Source excerpt

• Fair Trial Rights
• Judicial Conduct
• Police Assault
• Exclusion Of Unlawfully Obtained Evidence
• Right To Life
• Magistrates Courts Act

Mohofe v Minister of Safety and Security (13078/03)

Mohofe v Minister of Safety and Security (13078/03) [2005] ZAGPHC 91 (15 September 2005)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

13078/03

Judge

IW Schwartzman

The High Court dismissed a prescription defence and held the Minister liable after a police officer’s actions in a crowded street foreseeably exposed a bystander to fatal gunfire.

• Negligence
• Vicarious Liability
• Prescription
• Right To Life
• Police Duties
• Culpa