About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 1150
|
|
Lawyers for Human Rights v Minster in the Presidency and Others (44151/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1150 (23 June 2015)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GUATENG DIVISION,PRETORIA
CASE NO: 44151/2015
DATE: 05-02- 2016
NOT REPROTABLE
NOT OF INTERESTS TO OTHER
JUDGES
REVISED
In the
matter between:
LAWYERS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Applicant
and
MINISTER IN THE PRESIDENCY
1st Respondent
MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS
2nd Respondent
MINISTER OF DEFENCE
3rd Respondent
MINISTER OF POLICE
4th Respondent
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF HOME
AFFAIRS
5th Respondent
NATIONAL COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE
6th Respondent
PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONER OF
POLICE:
GAUTENG PROVINCE
7th Respondent
CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL SOUTH
AFRICAN
DEFENCE FORCE
8th Respondent
JUDGEMENT
HIEMSTRA, AJ
:
The question I have to
answer at this stage, is whether this application is urgent, to such
an extent that I should enrol and hear
the application, as such. I
have carefully read all the papers and I have listened to the
submissions made to me. On a conspectus
of everything that I have
heard and I have read, the factual situation is there was a possible
abuse of power by the Provincial
or National Commissioner of Police
by issuing authorisation under Section 13(7) of the South African
Police Service Act.
There
is no evidence that this was a trend that is going to happen again,
in the near future. There is no suggestion on the papers
that the
situation in the country is such, that it may be necessary at any
moment to act in the same manner, whether it was lawful
or not. This
application, in effect, concerns an incident that occurred on the 8th
of May 2015 and the applicant anticipate and believe
that there is a reasonable apprehension that it will, in the future,
again and again transpire.
I
have no reason to suspect that will happen. I find that the
application is not urgent and it is therefore removed from the roll.
As far as costs are concerned, the applicants are ordered to pay the
respondents' costs on a party and party scale. The costs include
the
costs of two counsel and the costs of senior counsel, in the case of
the 5th and 6th respondents.
COURT ADJOURNS
APPEARING FOR
APPLICANT:
ADV KENNEDY APPEARING
APPEARING FOR
RESPONDENTS:
ADV DIKOBE