South Africa Case Law

Mdluli v National Commissioner of South African Police Service (24980/2022)

Mdluli v National Commissioner of South African Police Service (24980/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 997 (2 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

24980/2022

Judge

Potterill

The court found that the SAPS correctly applied National Instruction 1 of 2017, which was the operative policy at the time of Mr Mdluli's application for legal assistance. The policy does not operate retrospectively in the legislative sense but governs internal affairs at the time of application. The SAPS followed the prescribed procedure, considered all relevant documents, and provided adequate reasons for its decision. The refusal was based on the fact that the alleged offences were committed against the SAPS and not in the execution of Mr Mdluli's official duties, making it contrary to pub…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• State Funded Legal Representation
• Public Interest
• Internal Policy Application

Legal Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (CCT188/14)

Legal Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (CCT188/14) [2015] ZACC 28; 2015 (6) SA 494 (CC); 2015 (11) BCLR 1346 (CC) (22 September 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 188/14

Judges

Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Molemela AJ, Nkabinde J, Theron AJ, Tshiqi AJ

The Constitutional Court dismissed Legal Aid South Africa’s moot appeal over Marikana funding, holding section 34 does not generally require state-funded representation before commissions of inquiry.

• Right Of Access To Courts
• State Funded Legal Representation
• Mootness
• Commission Of Inquiry
• Equality Before The Law
• Rationality Review

Legal-Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (1055/13)

Legal-Aid South Africa v Magidiwana and Others (1055/13) [2014] ZASCA 141; 2015 (2) SA 568 (SCA); [2014] 4 All SA 570 (SCA) (26 September 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1055/13

Judges

Ponnan, Maya, Swain, Zondi, Fourie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, following the settlement agreement between the parties, there was no longer any live dispute or lis requiring adjudication. The appeal was dismissed in terms of s 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, as any judgment would have no practical effect or result. The court found that, as a matter of principle, where all disputes have been resolved by agreement, it has no discretion to entertain the appeal. Even if such discretion existed, the circumstances did not warrant its exercise, as the case did not raise a discrete legal issue of public importance li…

Source excerpt

• Superior Courts Act Section 16
• Mootness
• State Funded Legal Representation
• Equality Rights
• Commissions Of Inquiry

Magidiwana and Another v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (37904/2013)

Magidiwana and Another v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (37904/2013) [2013] ZAGPPHC 292; [2014] 1 All SA 76 (GNP) (14 October 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37904/2013

Judge

T.M Makgoka

The court found that the applicants, as indigent and vulnerable survivors of the Marikana shootings, have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the commission, which may have serious criminal and civil consequences for them. The commission's proceedings are quasi-adversarial, and the absence of legal representation effectively excludes the applicants, undermining fairness and equality of arms. Section 34 of the Constitution applies to the commission, and in this context, the State is constitutionally obliged to provide legal assistance. Legal Aid SA's differentiation between fam…

Source excerpt

• State Funded Legal Representation
• Equality Before The Law
• Access To Courts
• Commission Of Inquiry
• Irrational Differentiation
• Procedural Fairness

Baloyi v National Commissioner of the South African Police Services-General Phiyega and Others (40732/13)

Baloyi v National Commissioner of the South African Police Services-General Phiyega and Others (40732/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 264 (16 August 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

40732/13

Judge

Raulinga

The court held that while the applicant is entitled to legal representation funded by SAPS before the Marikana Commission of Enquiry, he is not entitled to a legal representative of his own choice at state expense. The Commission is an investigative body, and its regulations do not confer a right to state-funded legal representation of choice. The applicant's reliance on sections 9, 34, and 35 of the Constitution was misplaced, as these provisions do not guarantee the relief sought. Furthermore, the applicant failed to comply with the requirements of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Ac…

Source excerpt

• Commission Of Enquiry
• Right To Legal Representation
• State Funded Legal Representation
• Conflict Of Interest
• Access To Justice

Jacobs NO v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others

Jacobs NO v Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2011] ZALCC 24; LCC64/2010 (23 August 2011)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC64/2010

Judge

MPSHE

The court found that the applicant was entitled to payment of legal expenses at the expense of the Land Claims Commission for the matters under LCC 3/98 and LCC 120/99. The refusal or failure by the Chief Land Claims Commissioner to authorize payment of the outstanding amounts was not based on any finding that the expenditure was unnecessary or fruitless, but rather on budgetary constraints and lack of prior authorization. The court held that the expenditure was unavoidable and incurred in the running of the trial, and that denying payment would amount to a denial of the applicant's constitut…

Source excerpt

• Restitution Of Land Rights Act
• State Funded Legal Representation
• Administrative Discretion
• Constitutional Right Of Access To Courts