South Africa Case Law

Ashebo v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT 250/22)

Ashebo v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (CCT 250/22) [2023] ZACC 16; 2023 (5) SA 382 (CC); 2024 (2) BCLR 217 (CC) (12 June 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 250/22

Judges

Maya DCJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Makgoka AJ, Mathopo J, Potterill AJ, Rogers J, Theron J

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant, an illegal foreigner who expressed an intention to apply for asylum, must be afforded an opportunity to do so, in line with the principle of non-refoulement and established precedent. Delay in expressing intention does not bar access to the asylum process, though it may affect credibility, which is for the Refugee Status Determination Officer to assess. The legislative amendments do not override the constitutional and international obligations to protect asylum seekers. The applicant's continued detention, without reasonable steps taken by the…

Source excerpt

• Non Refoulement
• Illegal Foreigner Detention
• Refugee Status Determination
• Section 12 Rights
• Refugees Act Interpretation
• Immigration Act Application

Mthembu v S (CCT115/09)

Mthembu v S (CCT115/09) [2010] ZACC 8; 2010 (1) SACR 619 (CC) ; 2010 (7) BCLR 636 (CC) (25 March 2010)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 115/09

Judges

Ngcobo, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court dismissed leave to appeal, holding that a six-year delay in arresting the applicant to serve sentence did not justify constitutional relief.

• Leave To Appeal
• Execution Of Sentence Delay
• Section 12 Rights
• Bail Conditions
• Criminal Conviction
• Sentence Enforcement

Zealand v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (CCT54/07)

Zealand v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Another (CCT54/07) [2008] ZACC 3; 2008 (6) BCLR 601 (CC) ; 2008 (2) SACR 1 (CC) ; 2008 (4) SA 458 (CC) (11 March 2008)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 54/07

Judges

Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mpati, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, Sachs, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that the applicant's detention as a sentenced prisoner in maximum security after his conviction and sentence were set aside was unlawful for the entire period from 23 August 1999 to 30 June 2004. The Court found that this detention violated section 12(1)(a) of the Constitution, as it was neither authorised by law nor in accordance with law, and amounted to a deprivation of freedom both arbitrary and without just cause. The state failed to justify the denial of the applicant's legal status as an awaiting-trial prisoner, and the series of magistrates' remand orders…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Detention
• Section 12 Rights
• Principle Of Legality
• Delictual Liability
• Damages For Wrongful Detention
• Burden Of Justification

S v Niemand (CCT 28/00)

S v Niemand (CCT 28/00) [2001] ZACC 11; 2002 (1) SA 21 (CC); 2002 (3) BCLR 219 (CC); 2001 (2) SACR 654 (CC); 2001 (11) BCLR 1181 (CC) (8 October 2001)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 28/00

Judges

Madala, Chaskalson, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Sachs, Yacoob, Madlanga

The Constitutional Court held that section 286 of the Criminal Procedure Act read with section 65(4)(b)(iv) of the Correctional Services Act is unconstitutional because it permits the indefinite detention of habitual criminals without a statutory maximum period. This indeterminacy exposes prisoners to the risk of lifelong incarceration for non-violent offences, which is grossly disproportionate and constitutes cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment under section 12(1)(e) of the Constitution. The absence of a maximum period is not cured by departmental practice or inferred limits. The appropr…

Source excerpt

• Indeterminate Sentencing
• Cruel Inhuman Or Degrading Punishment
• Habitual Criminals
• Reading In Remedy
• Section 12 Rights