South Africa Case Law

Mathibela v Minister of Justice and Correctional Service and Others (36375/2022)

Mathibela v Minister of Justice and Correctional Service and Others (36375/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 646 (31 August 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

36375/2022

Judge

E M Kubushi

The Court found that, although the Respondents did not comply with the Court Order directing the Applicant's transfer from C-Max to the local remand detention facility, the Applicant failed to establish that the Respondents' non-compliance was wilful and mala fide. The Respondents acted under a genuine mistaken belief that the Court Order was defective and required correction before implementation. The Applicant's changed status following conviction justified a reassessment of his security classification and a new decision regarding his detention location. As a result, the requirements for co…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Remand Detention
• Security Classification
• Urgent Application

Masilela and Others v Bouwers and Others (63532/2012, 16995/2013)

Masilela and Others v Bouwers and Others (63532/2012, 16995/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 103; 2013 (2) SACR 350 (GNP) (16 April 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

63532/2012, 16995/2013

Judge

E Bertelsmann

High-risk prisoners sought urgent transfer to Johannesburg. The High Court held the request was not urgent, internal remedies were not exhausted, and dismissed both applications.

• Mandamus
• Prisoner Transfer
• Security Classification
• Internal Remedies
• Judicial Review
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Mvoko and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2874/11, 2875/11)

Mvoko and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Others (2874/11, 2875/11) [2011] ZAECMHC 24; 2012 (1) SACR 472 (ECM) (2 December 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2874/11, 2875/11

Judge

Griffiths

The court held that the applicants were classified as high-risk inmates with a history of escape and serious pending charges, justifying the use of mechanical restraints and prison clothing during their testimony. The Correctional Services Act provides for reasonable limitations on prisoners' rights in the interests of security and safety. The belly chain restraint was found to be less restrictive than traditional handcuffs and did not unduly prejudice the applicants' ability to testify or their dignity. The clothing was necessary for identification and security, and its use did not create un…

Source excerpt

• Mechanical Restraints
• Prisoner Rights
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Fair Trial Rights
• Security Classification