IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION)
|
|
- Roberta Hall
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NO.: 1153/06 In the matter between: DIRK HENDRIK PRINS PLAINTIFF and MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY RESPONDENT JUDGMENT LANDMAN J [1] Mr Dirk Hendrik Prins, the plaintiff, and his wife Hazel lived in a caravan at the Amanda Country Lodge, Donkerhoek, Rustenburg. He is middle aged and a panel beater by trade. His wife is a car guard. He fell upon hard times and fell behind with his rent. On 25 April 2005 Mr Grey Sparke, the resort manager and Mr Alfred Zwane, the caravan park manager, gave the plaintiff written notice to vacate the premises of Amanda Country Lodge by no later than 5pm on 1 st May The notice also stated: failure to adhere with (sic) this notice will result in severe legal action being 1
2 taken. [2] The plaintiff vacated the premises on 25 April He and his wife found accommodation with a friend in the ou dorp of Rustenburg. On 5 May 2005 Mr Sparke and Mr Zwane arrived at the plaintiff s new address and arrested the plaintiff or at least induced him to accompany them to the Rustenburg Police Station. At the Police Station the managers laid a complaint against the plaintiff. [3] Inspector Susan Schoeman interviewed them and recorded, in an affidavit, the complaint viz the plaintiff failed to pay lodging losies in terms of the Hotel Act (which had been repealed). She took the plaintiff to the cells and handed him over to Inspector Matshe. [4] According to the plaintiff he was placed in an overcrowded cell containing about 40 other suspects. He was detained until his release at the Magistrates Court on Monday 9 May The control Prosecutor, Mr Bekker, withdrew the charges that had been preferred against him. [5] The plaintiff says he paid a protection fee of R100 a day during his incarceration to other inmates who were in de facto control of his cell. He was given 2 blankets and was obliged to sleep in the exercise yard which is covered by a grid but otherwise open to the elements. He was cold at 2
3 night. There was not enough room to sleep. No mattress was supplied. He slept on the concrete floor. The blankets were dirty and lice infested. The inmates controlling the cell did not permit him to use the toilet until Monday morning. He was given 2 meals a day but inmates took his food away, so he did not eat regularly. [6] The inmates were criminals. At least one inmate told him that he had hijacked motor vehicles. threatened to harm his wife. Some inmates [7] When he was released his ring, which was inexpensive but had sentimental value as it was given to him by his son 12 years at the time, and his shoelaces were not returned to him. The staff of the Rustenburg Police Station told him that they had been lost. [8] Mrs Prins was guarding cars on Thursday 5 May outside Clicks in Rustenburg when she received word that her husband, the plaintiff, was detained in the cells of the local Police Station. She got a fright. She went to the Police Station and was able to speak to him for about 2 minutes. He had not yet been booked. [9] Altold she visited the plaintiff 3 times while he was in the cells. There were 6 or 7 people in front of him. They conversed in public. She gave him R100 a time to pay 3
4 protection money. She was pushed and jostled when she visited the plaintiff. She said the cells were crowded. She confirmed, under cross examination, that the plaintiff complained of the bad conditions in the cells. He came out starving. She saw the hands of inmates in his cell grabbing his food. He told her that it was cold. The top of the cell was open. He slept in the open exercise yard. She was asked whether the plaintiff had complained to her about the state of the blankets. She said he did not. She said she did not know whether his blankets had been taken away from him. He did not tell her that he had been bitten by lice. [10] She said he told her he had been to the toilet once but he did not describe the condition of the toilet to her. [11] She said that their children particularly the 22 year old and 20 year old did not wish to have anything to do with him because he had been in gaol. Nevertheless they had spoken to him briefly on his birthday. She sought assistance from Mr Bekker, the control prosecutor, at the Rustenburg Magistrates Court. [12] Mr Bekker testified on behalf of the plaintiff. He saw Mrs Prins together with Inspector Claasen the case liason officer. Mrs Prins told him about her husband s arrest. He gathered that it was about rent money but he could not fully understand her. Mrs Prins told him she had to pay money 4
5 as a fee to protect her husband. He called for the docket. On Monday he perused the docket and advised that the plaintiff had not committed a crime. In any event the plaintiff had been arrested without a warrant. complained of his treatment in the cells. The plaintiff [13] Mr Bekker had visited the cells of the Rustenburg Police Station on those occasions when he dealt with bail aplications. He described the layout of the cells. The cells are in an L shape. There is a holding cell and 5 permanent cells. All cells consist of a roofed area and an area only closed by an overhead grid (the exercise yard). He had heard inmates complaining of rain and cold when they slept under the grid. He had also heard complaints of rape and assault in the cells. He did not pay attention to the conversation of the plaintiff with his wife. But he remembers the plaintiff complaining of sleeping under the grid. He had not been at the cells when it was time to sleep. [14] It was put to him that the Police had made a mistake of law and that the Police had bona fide believed that the plaintiff could be arrested. He stated that he did not know what their version of the case was. [15] Superintendent Sellela, the Station Commander of the Rustenburg Police Station, gave evidence. His evidence was that: 5
6 (a) The regulations regulating the condition of the cells are strictly adhere to. (b) The cells are never overcrowded. Excess inmates are transferred to other Police Stations or the Prison. At times there may be one extra person in a cell. (c) He has never heard of the concept of protection money. (d) As it was winter 3 blankets and a mattress were issued (e) (f) to the inmates. The blankets are drycleaned every 2 weeks. The inmates do not sleep in the exercise section of the cells. They are locked in the roof area of the cell. (g) The plaintiff would not have been prevented from using the toilet. (h) Three meals (not 2) are served per day. (i) Policemen are on duty when the food is served and food could not be taken away from the plaintiff. (j) The inmates were suspects and not criminals. But, as some were suspected of serious crimes, they were locked in at night in order to prevent them escaping. (k) Inmates are given their possession when they are released. The plaintiff would have received his ring and shoelaces as possessions were locked in a safe. The plaintiff would have signed a receipt for his possessions. [16] The plaintiff s description of the conditions prevailing in his cell does not tally at all with the version of the defendant. They cannot both be true. The plaintiff struck me as being an honest man of humble circumstances. He could easily have exaggerated the conditions. I do not think he did. 6
7 [17] Mrs Prins supports part of her husband s testimony. She could, if she was being untruthful, have confirmed even more. [18] Superintendent Sellelo on the other gave his evidence confidently and crisply. It would be most commendable if the conditions at the Rustenburg cells were a textbook example of what they should be. But they simply sound too good to be true. [19] The defendant has been obstructive as regards the prosecution of this matter. Essential documents were not provided timeously to the plaintiff s attorneys. The defendant provided a copy of an occurrence book. But it appears that this is of no value as a separate book is kept for the cells. This book, so says the Superintendent, could reflect that the cells are visited every hour. The Superintendent said that the cell register would indicate that the cells were not overcrowded. He was asked by Mr Botha, who appeared for the plaintiff, to bring the register to court. He returned from Rustenburg the next day and said that he arrived there late and departed too early to secure the register. [20] He also said that the receipts kept by the station would reflect whether the plaintiff s possessions were returned to him. This document was also not produced. [21] Mr Bekker, as opposed to the other witnesses, is an independent witness. He did not see the cells during the period of the plaintiff s detention but he has seen them on other occasions and he has heard, by virtue of his position as a control prosecutor, frequent complains about assault, 7
8 rape and inmates sleeping in rain and cold. He is also a witness to the plaintiff s distress regarding his experiences while in detention. [22] Although a faint attempt was made in cross examination to negate the wrongfulness of the arrest and detention, no argument was presented to me by the defendant to justify the defendant s plea. The plaintiff was unlawfully and wrongfully arrested and detained by members of the Rustenburg Police Station acting within the course and scope of their employment. The defendant is vicariously liable for the delict committed by them. The plaintiff has suffered harm on account of his unlawful arrest and detention. [23] What remains is to determine the quantum of the damages suffered by the plaintiff. In deciding on the quantum to be awarded to the plaintiff I am mindful that: (a) There is no fixed formula for the assessment of damages for non patrimonial loss. See Seira v Minister of Safety & Security and Others 2005 (5) SA 130 (C) at 148. (b) It is recognised that a court has the power to estimate an amount ex aequo et bono and consequently enjoys a wide discretion, with fairness as the dominant norm. In Pitt v Economic Insurance Co Ltd 1957 (3) SA 284 (D) Holmes J stated at 287E F: I have only to add that the Court must take care to see that its award is fair to both sides it must give just compensation to the plaintiff, but it must not pour out 8
9 largesse from the horn of plenty at the defendant s expense. See Seira s case at 149. (c) Awards in comparable cases provide general guideline. But as Innes C J said in Hulley v Cox 1923 AD 234 at 246 Of course, each claim must depend upon its own facts, and a comparison with other cases can never be decisive; but it is instructive. Of course previous awards need to be converted to current value. (d) Awards in decisions predating the new constitutional dispensation ushered in by the Interim Constitution (The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1993) and the final Constitution (The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996) may be too low for delicts relating to the invasion of liberty, committed after the new dispensation took effect. In a constitutional dispensation where our Bill of Rights rules and regulates the affairs of men, it would seem to me to follow that an infringement of such an entrenched right protected by the Constitution may very well attract a larger measure of damages than under a system where citizens were not accustomed to the protection of entrenched rights. Per Claasen J in Lui Quin Ping v Akani Egoli (Pty) Ltd t/a Gold Reef City Casino 2000 (4) SA 68 (W). (g) (e) The circumstances of the arrest. (f) The duration of the detention. The conditions of the detention. 9
10 (h) The effect of the arrest and detention on the plaintiff. (i) The standing of the plaintiff in the community. (j) The presence or absence of malice. (k) The presence or absence of an apology. (l) The presence or absence of publicity. (m) Any contribution by the plaintiff to his loss. See Tobani v Ministerial Correctional Services NO [2002] 2 ALL SA 318 (SE). [24] Further, as to the quantum of the claim, the circumstances of the plaintiff s arrest, its duration and nature, its distressing effect upon him, his standing, the absence of malice on the part of the defendants, and the awards in comparable cases, a fair and proper award for the deprivation of the plaintiff s liberty occasioned by his unlawful arrest would be R In my view this finding is correct. The detention of a person is either justified by the laws which regulate detention in a prison, or it is not. So fundamental is the right to personal liberty that the lawfulness otherwise of a person s detention must be objectively justifiable, regardless of the bona fides of the gaoler and regardless whether or not he was aware of the wrongful nature of the arrest and detention. This has always been the position. [25] Mr Senatle submitted that although he did not necessarily want to justify the arrest, the plaintiff was the author of his own misfortune. He should have paid his rent. Had he done so he would not have been arrested and detained. This is a meritless contention. The plaintiff s impecuniosity s does not 10
11 constitute a crime and cannot diminish, in any way, the amount of compensation to which he is entitled. [26] Although the State Attorney (in the application for postponement before me which was refused) said he recommended to his client that R would be awarded, Mr Senatle submitted that R4000 would be adequate compensation. [27] I am unable to appreciate how Mr Senatle fixed on this amount. He took me through an exercise where he considered a number of cases since He updated the quantum in these cases in accordance with Koch s The Quantum Year Book to 2005 and what then worked out what can be described as a daily rate for unlawful detention. He also described the facts of these cases. Dladla v Minister of Police 1973 (2) SA 714 (W) R3 700; Ngcobo v Minister of Police 1978 (4) SA 930 (D) R8 600; Minister van Wet en Order v Van Den Heever 1982 (4) SA 16 (C) R 2 500; Ramakulukusha v Commander, Venda National Force 1989 (2) SA 813 (VSC) R13 000; Thandani v Minister of Law and Order 1991 (1) SA 702 (E) R1 300; and Manase v Minister of Safety and Security and Another 2003 (1) SA 567 (CkHC) R [28] I am doubtful about the value of this exercise but in any 11
12 event the lowest amount awarded per day (according to these cases) is R Mr Senatle suggests that R1 000 per day would be a satisfactory amount for the plaintiff. He was unable to motivate why it should be lower than the lowest amount previously awarded. His suggestion also fails to take into account the wrongful arrest of the plaintiff. [29] In my opinion the decision in Louw v Minister of Safety & Security 2006 (2) SACR 178 (T) provide a useful benchmark. There, as the head note states, the plaintiffs, a married couple, claimed damages from the defendants on the grounds of unlawful arrest. The first plaintiff, acting in the course of her duties as an employee, removed a fax machine belonging to her employer from premises occupied by the fourth defendant and his wife. His wife, who was an employee of the same business, had just been dismissed. The fourth defendant reported the incident to the police who, after arriving on the scene in numbers, formed the opinion that a theft had taken place. Despite plaintiffs explanation and documentary proof of ownership, they were arrested and led from their premises in full view of the public in a humiliating manner, and detained on a Saturday night in one of Pretoria s busiest police stations. They were traumatised by the police s action, and were exposed to hardened criminals while being detained under appalling conditions. The plaintiffs had suffered not only humiliation and an invasion of their dignity, but also emotional harm that had not 12
13 yet been entirely overcome. It was fortunate that they were held for only 20 hours, that they were intelligent people able to deal with what had happened to them, and that their reputations had not suffered materially. Nevertheless, the seriousness of the matter should not be underestimated, damages in the amount of R was awarded to each plaintiff. This amounts to about R today. [30] Louw s case must be compared with Manase v Minister of Safety and Security (supra) where the court took a serious view of the malicious arrest and detention of the plaintiff. He was at the time of 65 years old, married, a grandfather and a successful businessman, residing permanently in Keiskammahoek. Not only had he never been in any trouble with the law before, but he must also have been respected in the small village where he lived and conducted his business. The serenity of his life was obviously shattered by the arrest and, as he testified, the detention proved to be a traumatic experience. He was detained for a lengthy period 49 during which time he had to share a cell with criminals. Due to his arrest and detention he has lost the esteem not only of the people of Keiskammahoek, but also of his business associates. [31] The court was of the opinion that the malicious arrest and detention were the main wrongful acts committed against the plaintiff. The malicious prosecution was a natural corollary to 13
14 the previous acts. After careful consideration of all the facts, and especially the hardship, humiliation and indignity suffered by the plaintiff. The court was of the opinion that an award of general damages in the sum of R was fair and just in this case. R of this amount was allocated to the claim for malicious arrest and detention. R amounts to R today. [32] I am of the view that damages in the amount of R taking into consideration the undermentioned facts would be fair. The affront to the plaintiff s dignity, his humiliation, the restriction, his liberty, the duration of his detention, the appalling circumstances of his detention, his social standing, the absence of malice (sheer incompetence prevailed), the absence of a apology by the defendant which would have been the right thing to have done, and the limited publicity given to the detention. I do not think that the arrest and detention of the plaintiff was a principal cause of the poor relationship between him and his two elder children. The arrest and detention was wholly unwarranted. It was not caused by the plaintiff s conduct. [33] It remains for me to mention that the plaintiff, whose dignity had been invaded, was subjected to demeaning crossexamination regarding his credibility (as was his wife s) in a bid to diminish the quantum of his claim. 14
15 [34] Mr Senatle, who appeared for the defendant, put it to the plaintiff and his wife that the eviction notice had been handed to the plaintiff s Rustenburg attorney and that they were being untruthful when they denied this. However, when the docket was eventually produced after the proposition had been put to the witness it transpired that it contained, inter alia, the eviction notice. Mr Senatle submitted that perhaps the attorney had given it to the Police. This is mere speculation. Randell and Bax The South African Attorneys Handbook note at page 11 that: Among some of the Plakaats translated by J. de Villiers Roos one finds that attorneys at the Cape, in common with advocates, were not allowed to argue ( kakelen ) after the judge passed sentence; that they might not take more cases than the could expeditiously manage; that advocates could keep their hats on when the judges did, but attorneys had to be bareheaded; that pleadings should be short, without unnecessary verbiage or repetition; that no lawyer might presumptuously assert what he could not prove, and that they should attend court whether they had cases or not. [35] The plakaat refers to some rules of conduct or etiquette which are time bound. But it refers to more universal rules i.e: that no lawyer might presumptuously assert what he could not prove. It is a lesson which should be taken to heart. In the circumstances I intended awarding costs on the High Court scale even though the amount awarded falls within the 15
16 jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court. [36] In the premises: 1. The defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amount of R together with interest at the present rate from date of judgment to date of payment and costs on the High Court scale. A A LANDMAN JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff : Mr S Botha For the Defendant : Adv Senatle Attorneys for the Plaintiff : Botha Coetzer & Smith Attorneys for the Defendant : State Attorney Date of Hearing : August 2006 Date of Judgment : 08 September
Delivered on: 31/05/13 NOT REPORTABLE SANDISO THIRDMAN MATU
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: MTHATHA CASE NO: 2408/10 Heard on: 27/05/13 Delivered on: 31/05/13 NOT REPORTABLE In the matter between: SANDISO THIRDMAN MATU Plaintiff and MINISTER
More informationIN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA
V IN THE GAUTENG DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PRETORIA Not reportable In the matter between - CASE NO: 2015/54483 HENDRIK ADRIAAN ROETS Applicant And MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 2589/2012 In the matter between: MLINDELI DAVID SEPTEMBER
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE
More informationTHE MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY THE NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS APPEAL JUDGMENT
NOT REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO: CA 107/2016 Date Heard: 10 March 2017 Date Delivered: 16 March 2017 In the matter between: THE MINISTER OF SAFETY
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable CASE NO: 295/05 In the matter between : THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Appellant and SEYMOUR, DENNIS THOMAS Respondent Before: Heard: 2 MAY 2006
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. : 3861/2013 In the matter between:- FRANCIS RALENTSOE MOLOI Applicant and MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL
More informationMINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION MTHATHA Case No. 2074/11 Date heard: 25/2/15 Date delivered: 27/2/15 Not reportable In the matter between: VUYISA SOFIKA Plaintiff and MINISTER
More informationINFORMATION DOCUMENT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF LAND
INFORMATION DOCUMENT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF LAND 1. INTRODUCTION For purposes of this document, a clear distinction must be made between unlawful access to property and squatting in
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06. In the matter between: and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT : MTHATHA CASE NO. 1299/06 In the matter between: THANDILE FUNDA Plaintiff and THE MINSTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Defendant JUDGMENT MILLER, J.:
More informationMINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES JUDGMENT. [1] In accordance to an agreement which was reached between the
Not Reportable IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION PORT ELIZABETH In the matter between: Case No: 3509/2012 Date Heard: 15/08/2016 Date Delivered: 1/09/2016 ANDILE SILATHA Plaintiff
More informationDAMAGES WRONGFUL ARREST AND DETENTION QUANTUM OF DAMAGES Minister of Safety and Security v Seymour SA 320 (SCA)
DAMAGES WRONGFUL ARREST AND DETENTION QUANTUM OF DAMAGES Minister of Safety and Security v Seymour 2006 6 SA 320 (SCA) 1 Introduction The judgment by Nugent JA (with whom Navsa and Heher JJA concurred)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) Case No: 01753/11 MANTJIU MOTIANG JOSIAS MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) Case No: 01753/11 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED. 26 May 2015 E J Francis In the matter between:
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Civil) AND. 2011: February 8; October 17
COMMONWEALTH OF DOMINICA CLAIM NO DOMHCV2010/0030 BETWEEN: THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Civil) DANNY AMBO Claimant AND [1] MICHAEL LAUDAT [2] THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DECISION-ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2010-04134 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PETER DEACON Claimant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before: Master Margaret Y Mohammed Appearances:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) J.o.. 13./2.ol.1- oari JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) \0 \ 5! 20i1- Case Number: 9326/2015 ( 1) REPORT ABLE: "ff!& I NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: '!@/NO (3) REVISED. J.o.. 13./2.ol.1- oari
More informationCASE NO: 6084/15. In the matter between: DENEL SOC LIMITED. Applicant. and
Republic of South Africa In the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division, Cape Town) In the matter between: DENEL SOC LIMITED CASE NO: 6084/15 Applicant and PERSONS WHOSE IDENTITIES ARE TO THE
More informationINFORMATION DOCUMENT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF LAND
INFORMATION DOCUMENT ON HOW TO DEAL WITH UNLAWFUL OCCUPATION OF LAND 1. INTRODUCTION For purposes of this document, a clear distinction must be made between unlawful access to property and squatting in
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. CA 107/2017 APPEAL JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN CASE NO. CA 107/2017 In the matter between: NATASHA GOLIATH Appellant and THE MINISTER OF POLICE Respondent APPEAL JUDGMENT Bloem J
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO:966/2015. In the matter between: GCINIBANDLA NELSON GABAYI AND
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION: MTHATHA) CASE NO:966/2015 In the matter between: GCINIBANDLA NELSON GABAYI AND ANOTHER PLAINTIFFS AND MINISTER OF POLICE AND ANOTHER DEFENDANTS
More informationGuidelines for sheriffs: EVICTIONS
Guidelines for sheriffs: EVICTIONS FOREWORD The South African Board for Sheriffs has prepared this Guideline for sheriffs: Evictions for the use of the sheriff s profession. The execution of eviction orders
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have
More information~.,.z;.;:~ ) A ~--
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA ( 1 J REPORT ABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO ~.,.z;.;:~1... 13) A ~-- DATE SIGNATURE CASE NO:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Eastern Cape High Court: Mthatha CASE NO. 2268/09 Reportable In the matter between: JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Eastern Cape High Court: Mthatha CASE NO. 2268/09 Reportable In the matter between: MGCINENI GUGA Applicant And MINISTER OF SAFETY & SECURITY THE STATION COMMISIONER MTHATHA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) PRETORIA
34537/07 - sn 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) PRETORIA CASE NO: 34537/07 DATE: 27/10/2008 In the matter between: JERRY JAMES NDHLOVU PLAINTIFF versus MINISTER OF SAFETY
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG MOENYANE MODISE HUNTER THE MINISTER OF POLICE
Reportable: Circulate to Judges: Circulate to Magistrates: Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO YES / NO In the matter between: IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT, MAFIKENG CASE NO:
More information(EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO: 3122/09
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO: 3122/09 In the matter between: JAPHET PROFESS KHWELA OCTAVIA NTOBINAZO KHWELA SIHLE KHWELA FIRST PLAINTIFF SECOND PLAINTIFF THIRD
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISON, PRETORIA JUDGMENT
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISON, PRETORIA REPORT ABLE: YES / NO OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGE ~v);~ (3 SIGNATURE In the matter between: CASE NUMBER: 37321/2015 RONALD MACHONGWE Plaintiff
More informationCriminal Procedure Act 51 of Civil procedure Absolution from the instance Test Unlawful arrest and detention Claim for damages Notion of arrest
Gali obo Gali & another v Kok & another [2009] JOL 24232 (E) Key Words Reported in: Judgments Online, a LexisNexis Electronic Law Report Series Case No: CA 115 / 06 Judgment Date(s): 27/ 08 /2009 Hearing
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA DIVISION)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION
1 2 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 LARA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COMMISSIONER J.S. SELEBI (1 ST, SAPS INSPECTOR MALCOLM POTJE (2
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT REPORTABLE Case No: 1037/13 In the matter between: THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE INSPECTOR LEGANO PHOSHOKO First Appellant
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.: 1071/ /2003
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No.: 1071/2003 1072/2003 In the matter between: H W STEENBERGEN Z J CILLIERS J J A HILLS G J DE BEER N F VAN ZIJL J N MEYER M A MYBURGH
More informationA REPORT BY THE OMBUDSMAN ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THE DETENTION OF A FOUR YEAR OLD BOY WITH HIS MOTHER IN THE WANAHEDA POLICE CELLS
A REPORT BY THE OMBUDSMAN ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH LED TO THE DETENTION OF A FOUR YEAR OLD BOY WITH HIS MOTHER IN THE WANAHEDA POLICE CELLS An omission to act or a dereliction of duty Who is to be blamed?
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case No 195/97 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: GUARDIAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Appellant and MATTHEW STEPHEN CHARLES SEARLE N O Respondent CORAM: VIVIER, HOWIE,
More information(EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG PRETORIA) JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG PRETORIA) CASE NO:21313/2011 and 26083/2011 In the matter between: MAHLOMOLA LAZARUS MAFA SYDNEY JOSEPH NYATHI FIRST PLAINTIFF
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT: THE SCA BRINGS CLARITY
CASES / VONNISSE 473 ARRESTS WITHOUT WARRANT: THE SCA BRINGS CLARITY Minister of Safety and Security v Sekhoto 2011 1 SACR 315 (SCA); [2011] 2 All SA 157 (SCA) 1 Introduction Section 40(1) of the Criminal
More informationMULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A
MULTI CHOICE QUESTIONS EVI301-A 2010 Second Semester Assignment 1 Question 1 If the current South African law does not provide a solution to an evidentiary problem, our courts will first of all search
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA) MOGALE, DAISY DIBUSENG PAULINAH...First Applicant
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA (REPUBLIC
More informationTHE MINISTER OF POLICE JUDGMENT. [1] In this action the seven plaintiffs have sued the defendant for their arrest and
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL
More informationCHRISTIAN SIKHOLELO TYATYA THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) CASE NO.: 1850/2010 In the matter between: CHRISTIAN SIKHOLELO TYATYA Plaintiff And THE MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Defendant JUDGMENT
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) LEKHULENI VELAPHI VICTOR...PLAINTIFF
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
More informationPOLICE CONSTABLE RENNIE LAKHAN NO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO REASONS
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2010-01582 BETWEEN SIEULAL RAMSARAN CLAIMANT AND POLICE CONSTABLE RENNIE LAKHAN NO. 13429 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
More informationIN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
IN THE KWAZULU-NATAL HIGH COURT, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AR238/08 THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY First Appellant THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT Second Appellant
More informationAnswer 1 to Performance Test A. Memorandum
Answer 1 to Performance Test A Memorandum To: Mary Hamline From: Applicant Date: July 29, 2008 Re: Chris Pearson v. Savings Galore Below is the requested information regarding our client, Chris Pearson
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 25, 2003 v No. 235966 Ingham Circuit Court LENG YANG, LC No. 00-075519-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More information4:15-cv TGB-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/29/15 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
4:15-cv-11949-TGB-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/29/15 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1 DOMINIQUE RONDEAU, individually; UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION -v- Plaintiff, No. Hon. DETROIT
More informationIN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG
IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG Case Number: 1661/2009 In the matter between: EMMANUEL TLHAGANYANE Plaintiff and MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Defendant JUDGMENT LANDMAN J: Introduction [1] Emmanuel
More informationMALAWI. EMPLOYMENT ACT 2000 No. 6 of 2000
MALAWI EMPLOYMENT ACT 2000 No. 6 of 2000 PART II--FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES 4. (1) No person shall be required to perform forced labour. (2) Any person who exacts or imposes forced labour or causes or permits
More informationLegal Resources Foundation. Arrest. Know Your Rights
Legal Resources Foundation Arrest Know Your Rights Contents The right to be free... 2 What is an arrest?... 2 Who can arrest another person?... 2 When can a person be arrested?... 3 How does the police
More informationDEFINITIONS. Accuse To bring a formal charge against a person, to the effect that he is guilty of a crime or punishable offense.
DEFINITIONS Words and Phrases The following words and phrases have the meanings indicated when used in this chapter according to Black s Law Dictionary, common dictionary, and/or are distinctive to law
More information518 Defending suspects at police stations / appendix 1
518 Defending suspects at police stations / appendix 1 POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 PART I: POWERS TO STOP AND SEARCH 1 Power of constable to stop and search persons, vehicles etc (1) A constable
More informationREVIEW JUDGMENT DELIVERED : 29 AUGUST 2003
Republic of South Africa REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION) HIGH COURT REF NO: 1144/2003 CASE No: D997/2002 MAGISTRATE S SERIAL No: 105/2003 In the matter
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2014/ A3084 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED. DATE: 17 February 2015... SPILG J MODIBA
More information1. The First and Second Applicants are employed as an Administration
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT JOHANNESBURG J3797/98 CASE NO: In the matter between ADRIAAN JACOBUS BOTHA ELIZABETH VENTER First Applicant Second Applicant and DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ARTS
More informationIn the matter between: Case No: 1662/2008 MLANDELI DICKSON YANTA MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
REPORTABLE IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE, GRAHAMSTOWN) In the matter between: Case No: 1662/2008 MLANDELI DICKSON YANTA Plaintiff And MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY Defendant Coram:
More informationDAIMLERCHRYSLER SERVICES SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD And RAPHAKANE DAVID MABOGOANE JUDGMENT
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE SIGNATURE ) CASE NUMBER: 13/45391 HEARD: 29 FEBRUARY
More informationand MUNICIPALITY OF NKONKOBE
Not reportable In the High Court of South Africa (South Eastern Cape Local Division) (Port Elizabeth High Court) Case No 2356/2006 Delivered: In the matter between PETER FRANCE N.O. HILLARY BARRIS N.O.
More informationIMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ACT 27 OF ] (English text signed by the President)
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ACT 27 OF 2002 [ASSENTED TO 12 JULY 2002] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 16 AUGUST 2002] ACT (English text signed by the President) Regulations
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL COURT) JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EAST LONDON CIRCUIT LOCAL COURT) CASE NO: EL 375/15 ECD 775/15 [Not reportable] In the matter between CURTIS DAMIEN NEL Plaintiff and MINISTER OF POLICE Defendant JUDGMENT
More informationGUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION. of the Domestic Violence Act for the Magistrates
GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION of the Domestic Violence Act for the Magistrates Department: Justice and Constitutional Development REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA PREFACE The Lower Court Management Committee
More informationSTANDING ORDER (GENERAL) 349 MEDICAL TREATMENT AND HOSPITALIZATION OF A PERSON IN CUSTODY
STANDING ORDER (GENERAL) 349 MEDICAL TREATMENT AND HOSPITALIZATION OF A PERSON IN CUSTODY 1. Background It is the responsibility of the Service to ensure that a person in custody receives medical treatment
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: and
Case No 385/97 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter of: and THE STATE Respondant CORAM : VAN HEERDEN, HEFER et SCOTT JJA HEARD : 21 MAY 1998 DELIVERED : 27 MAY 1998 JUDGEMENT SCOTT
More informationFACT SHEET. Juveniles (children aged 16 or under):
FACT SHEET Introduction Arrest and Bail It is important for our clients to have an appreciation of their rights when it comes to such things as being arrested or being granted bail. However, in the event
More informationDOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT NO. 116 OF 1998
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT NO. 116 OF 1998 [View Regulation] [ASSENTED TO 20 NOVEMBER, 1998] [DATE OF COMMENCEMENT: 15 DECEMBER, 1999] (English text signed by the President) This Act has been updated to Government
More informationJUDGMENT. [1] The applicant seeks an order directing the respondents to return a
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT: MTHATHA) CASE NO: 862/09 DELIVERED ON : 08/04/10 In the matter between: EUNICE FEZIWE MBANGI Applicant And THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY
More information11/9/2017 9:48 AM 17CV48960 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES. Case No.
11/9/2017 9:48 AM 17CV48960 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF DESCHUTES 8 MELISSA GOTTLIEB, an individual, and A.G., a minor, by and through his natural 9 parent
More informationNOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED
NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED LINCOLNSHIRE POLICE Policy Document Code of Ethics All staff involved in carrying out functions under this policy and associated procedures and appendices will do so in accordance
More informationCASE NO. 795/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: and
795/2000 CASE NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (BOPHUTHATSWANA PROVINCIAL DIVISION) In the matter between: MARCEL ANDREW MOLEMA PLAINTIFF and MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL FOR SAFETY & SECURITY
More informationFORM 10 [Rule 3.25] COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM
FORM 10 [Rule 3.25] COURT FILE NUMBER 1801-06296 Clerk s Stamp COURT JUDICIAL CENTRE PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT COURT OF QUEEN S BENCH OF ALBERTA CALGARY RYAN REILLY HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ALBERTA
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 16783/2011 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED... DATE...
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA [FUNCTIONING AS MPUMALANGA CIRCUIT COURT, MBOMBELA] (1) (2) (3) ;}.c) tdl-17 DATE REPORTABLE: YES~ _... ~ OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YE~
More informationJUDGMENT THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY. Neutral citation: Minister of Safety and Security v Katise(328/12) [2013] ZASCA 111 (16 September 2013)
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: REPORTABLE Case No: 328/12 THE MINISTER OF SAFETY AND SECURITY APPELLANT and BONISILE JOHN KATISE RESPONDENT Neutral citation:
More informationSOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2008/4046 DATE:12/08/2011 (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... DATE SIGNATURE In the
More informationIN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA CASE NUMBER: 68993/09 DATE: 23 FEBRUARY 2010 In the matter between: COLIN JOSEPH DE JAGER First Applicant SOUTH ROCK TRADING 20 CC Second Applicant And THE MINISTER
More informationTHE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) High Court Ref No: 13858 Goodwood Case No: C1658/2012 In the matter between: STATE And RAYMOND TITUS ACCUSED Coram: BINNS-WARD & ROGERS
More informationCONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS. Kruger v National Director of Public Prosecutions [2018] ZACC 13
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 336/17 ARRIE WILLEM KRUGER Applicant and NATIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Respondent Neutral citation: Kruger v National Director
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT BELLS BANK NUMBER ONE (PTY) LTD
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case no: C144/08 In the matter between: BELLS BANK NUMBER ONE (PTY) LTD Applicant and THE NATIONAL UNION OF MINE WORKERS
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE JUDGMENT ECJ no: 138 PARTIES: RASHAAD SOOMAR APPLICANT and THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KROON THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS MR ALWYN GRIEBENOW FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND
More informationSOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2009/5959 DATE:26/08/2011 REPORTABLE (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3) REVISED...... DATE SIGNATURE
More informationPART I SEXUAL OFFENCES
1 of 8 10/20/2008 7:30 AM PART I SEXUAL OFFENCES 1 Incest (1) Any male person who has sexual intercourse with a person related to him in a degree specified in column 1 of the Table set out at the end of
More informationREPORT ON A COMPLAINT BY MR L KHUMALO: FAILURE BY MAGISTRATES OFFICE, GERMISTON, TO ISSUE A WARRANT OF LIBERATION
REPORT OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR IN TERMS OF SECTION 182(1)(b) OF THE CONSTITUTION, 1996 AND SECTION 8(1) OF THE PUBLIC PROTECTOR ACT, 1994 REPORT NO 13 OF 2006/07 REPORT ON A COMPLAINT BY MR L KHUMALO:
More informationIn the High Court of South Africa (Eastern Cape Division) Case No CA 344/2002
In the High Court of South Africa (Eastern Cape Division) Case No CA 344/2002 In the matter between FUSILE QOKO Applicant and 1. WA LA GRANGE NO First Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS,
More informationTHE QUEEN TOKO MARCUS PEARSON. Guilty SENTENCE OF MACKENZIE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2004-070-4342 THE QUEEN 0 V TOKO MARCUS PEARSON Charges: Pleas: Counsel: Sentence: I. Burglary 2. Injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, MICHAEL BRUCE CAMERON DOB: 07/16/1962 1002 MARIAN ST ST PAUL, MN 55110 Defendant. Prosecutor File No. Court File No. District Court
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) NOMCEBO SYLVIA CWAILE
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES (3) REVISED CASE NO: 2012/45728 24 OCTOBER 2014
More informationUNIT 8: HANDLING OF CLAIMS
UNIT 8: HANDLING OF CLAIMS 74 Learning outcomes After completing Unit 8, you should be able to do the following: Identify the claimants who are either fully or partially incapacitated as well as those
More informationI N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F S O U T H A F R I C A ( C A P E O F G O O D H O P E P R O V I N C I A L D I V I S I O N )
REPORTABLE I N T H E H I G H C O U R T O F S O U T H A F R I C A ( C A P E O F G O O D H O P E P R O V I N C I A L D I V I S I O N ) In the matter between: High Court Ref. No.: 061488/06 Magistrate s Serial
More informationChapter 8 International legal standards for the protection of persons deprived of their liberty
in cooperation with the Chapter 8 International legal standards for the protection of persons deprived of their liberty Facilitator s Guide Learning objectives I To familiarize the participants with some
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION PIETERMARITZBURG
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA KWAZULU-NATAL DIVISION PIETERMARITZBURG CASE NO: AR790/16 In the matter between: SIYABONGA SANELE MBHELE PHILISIWE ELLINA MBHELE FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT and THE
More informationFREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA MOQHAKA TAXI ASSOCIATION
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between:- Case No. : 3706/2012 MOQHAKA TAXI ASSOCIATION Applicant and MOQHAKA MUNICIPALITY FREE STATE TRANSPORT OPERATING LICENSING
More informationindependent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00444/17 October 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland
independent and effective investigations and reviews PIRC/00444/17 October 2018 Report of a Complaint Handling Review in relation to Police Scotland What we do We obtain all the material information from
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
c IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Case number: 89921/15 In the matter between: VAN STADEN, DALEEN Plaintiff and ORKHUMALO STALLION SECURITY (PTY) LTD 1 st Defendant 2"d Defendant
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) JUDGMENT. [1] The applicant seeks a final interdict in terms of which he claims
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION) CASE NUMBER: 32771/03 In the matter between: M W MOGOLEGO APPLICANT and S MATHE 1 ST RESPONDENT MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND LAND AFFAIRS
More informationThe Complainant submits this complaint to the Court and states that there is probable cause to believe Defendant committed the following offense(s):
State of Minnesota County of Hennepin State of Minnesota, vs. Plaintiff, YEVGENIY SAVENOK DOB: 08/07/1985 17190 PARK CIRCLE EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346 Defendant. District Court 4th Judicial District Prosecutor
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 26, 2011 v No. 296732 Wayne Circuit Court ALBERT THOMAS ANDERSON, LC No. 09-007971-FH Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Balson v State of Queensland & Anor [2003] QSC 042 PARTIES: FILE NO: SC6325 of 2001 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: CHARLES SCOTT BALSON (plaintiff/respondent)
More information