REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
( 1) REPORTAB LE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUD~
(3) REVISED: NO -
Dote: 17 Morch 2025 E van der Schyff
In the matter between:
Mbulelo Zitha
and
Minister of Justice and Correctiona l Services
Acting National Commissioner of Correctional Services
Acting Area Commissioner Correctional Services
Acting Head of Correctional Services
Head of the Case Management Committee
JUDGMENT
Van der Schyff J CASE NO.: 2024 .. 009755
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Responde nt
Fourth Respondent
Fifth Respondent
2
[1] The applicant, Mr. Zitha, appeared in person. He is an inmate at the Boksburg
Correctional Centre A. He seeks an order directing the respondents to grant him a
combined 36 months of special remission on sentence, _in addition to paying previous
legal costs incurred in the amount of R34 670.00.
[2] Mr. Zitha essentially takes issue with the fifth respondent's decision that he does not
meet the requirements for special remission of sentence in terms of special
remission granted, respectively , on 16 December 2019, 8 May 2020, and 11 August
2023.
[3] The correct legal process to follow if an applicant seeks a decision to be set aside is
to institute review proceedings. This would, among others, oblige the decisionmaker
to provide the reasons underpinning the decision and the record of proceedings.
[4] I accept that the applicant is a layperson. However, the lenience that a court can
show towards in-person applicants has its boundaries.
[5] The applicant seeks this court to issue a mandamus that will effectively set aside a
decision taken by the fifth respondent. He thus seeks the court to step into the shoes
of the administrator and to make the decision with which the administrator was
seized. Such an approach militates against the principle of separation of powers. In
addition, this court is not apprised of the applicable policies that apply, the exact
wording of the remissions concerned , or the criteria that had to be considered by the
fifth respondent. Media statements can be misleading, and this court cannot rely
solely on the media statements that were attached to the application.
[6] The applicant has verbally been informed of the reason for not granting him special
remission on sentence on 15 August 2023. This reason was confirmed in writing on
1 December 2023. He, however, never received any feedback on the questions
raised in written communication with the third or fifth respondents.
2
3
[7] In the answering affidavit filed, the respondents convey that the applicant will be
considered for parole on 19 Septembe( 2025. The respondents again reiterate the
reason for holding that the applicant does not meet the requirement to be granted
remission on sentence , i.e., because he committed aggressive offenses 'and
therefore the remission excluded all inmate[s] who have committed aggressive
offences'. The respondents highlighted that the nature of the application is not a
review of unfair administrative action but an application to compel.
[8] The application does not meet the requirements for a mandamus to be granted. The
requirements for an interdict are trite. A mandamus is a specific category of interdict,
so all the requirements for a final interdict must be met. One of the requirements for
a final interdict is that no othet legal remedy is available to the applicant.1
[9] An applicant who challenges an administrative or other decision is bound to follow
review proceedings. Where the applicable timeframes for instituting review
proceedings have been surpassed , an aggrieved party can still attempt to make out
a case for condonation.
[1 O] In casu, the other satisfactory remedy is review proceedings. The effluxion of time
might be a hurdle to overcome, but the applicant is entitled to seek condonation.
Whether it will be granted will depend on the court considering the application.
[11] • In the circumstances , the application stands to be dismissed. The dismissal of this
application is not in itself a hurdle to instituting review proceedings if the legal
requirements for such proceedings have been met.
[12) The respondents did not seek a costs order to be granted against the applicant.
ORDER
In the result, the following order is granted:
1. The application is dismissed.
1 Lubbe v Die Administrat eur, Oranje Vrystaat 1968 {l) SA 111 (0).
3
4
2. No order as to costs is granted.
E van der Schyff
Judge of the High Court
Delivered: This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the electronic file of
this matter on Caselines.
For the applicant:
For the respondent:
Instructed by:
Date of the hearing:
Date of judgment:
4 In person
Adv. M. Mavundla
State Attorney, Pretoria
5 & 7 March 2025
17 March 2025