IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(l) REP OR TA BLE: N O
(2) O F INTEREST TO O TH ER JUDG ES: NO
(3) REVISED .
1 • \.
-
SIGNATUR E DAT E: 18 Augus t 2025
In the matter between:
MANKOPANE STEPHEN LANGA
AND 19 OTHERS
and
Case no: 2025-03.0684
First to
Twentieth Applicants
MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES First Respondent
CHAIRPERSON, PAROLE BOARD, LEEUWKOP Second Respondent
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Third Respondent
JUDGMENT
WILSON J:
1 The applicants are twenty individuals who say that they are serving life
sentences at the Leeuwkop Prison. On 26 May 2025, I gave judgment
directing the first respondent, the Minister, to explain why the applicants were

2

not produced before me in my urgent court on 20 May 2025, and to file a report
dealing with each of the applicants’ claims to be entitled to parole.
2 An affidavit from a Mr. PD Mthethwa, who identified himself as the acting Head
of the Leeuwkop Medium C prison, was filed on or shortly after 6 June 2025.
In that affidavit, it was explained that only the first applicant “and others” had
been named on the form requisitioning the applicants to attend court on 20
May 2025, and that the prison authorities had not had sight of the papers in
which the remaining applicants were identified. For that reason, the prison
authorities did not know who the other applicants were, and only the first
applicant, Mr. Langa, was brought to court. Mr. Mthethwa undertakes to
ensure that requisitions which contain reference to parties identified as “and
others” are more thoroughly checked in future, such that any “others”
requisitioned in respect of a particular case are identified and brought to court.
3 Annexed to Mr. Mthethwa’s affidavit was a table setting out the date on which
each of the applicants was sentenced, and the date on which they will qualify
to be considered for parole under the Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998 .
The table reveals that only the sixth and sixteenth applicants, Siyanda
Mngomezulu and Collen Maseko, have served the minimum non-parole
periods applicable to them. A third individual, the nineteenth applicant, Amos
Mokoena, is presently being considered for parole because of his advanced
age. The remaining applicants do not yet qualify to be considered for parole.
Mr. Mngomezulu died earlier this year, leaving Mr. Maseko and Mr. Mokoena
as the only applicants who qualif y for consideration for release on parole.
According to the affidavit, the situation applicable to Mr. Maseko is that he is

3

presently thought unfit for release, and will be considered for parole again on
11 November 2026. Mr. Mokoena’s fitness for release on parole will next be
considered on 26 February 2026.
4 I gave the applicants an opportunity to respond to Mr. Mthethwa’s affidavit.
Mr. Langa filed a supplementary affidavit on 6 July 2025. The affidavit neither
engages with, nor coherently disputes, the material allegations contained in
Mr. Mthethwa’s affidavit.
5 I accept the explanation Mr. Mthethwa provides for failing to make the second
to twentieth applicants available to me at court. I also accept that his proposal
to ensure that the error is not repeated is reasonable in the circumstances. I
trust that it will be implemented.
6 Given that the contents of the table annexed to Mr. Mthethwa’s affidavit are
not seriously disputed in Mr. Langa’s supplementary affidavit, I also accept
that none of the applicants, save for Mr. Maseko and Mr. Mokoena, presently
qualify to be considered for parole, and that Mr. Maseko’s and Mr. Mokoena’s
eligibility for parole is being considered in a manner consistent with the Act. In
his supplementary affidavit, Mr. Langa appears to fall back on an excursus of
sections of the various Correctional Services Acts, but he does not say why
these provisions are applicable to the applicants in this case or why they are
not being observed. He also appears to touch on the merits of some of the
applicants’ convictions, which are, of course, not before me.
7 For all these reasons the first to fifteenth and seventeenth to twentieth
applicants’ applications fall to be dismissed. In Mr. Maseko’s case, however, I
require further information. The table annexed to Mr. Mthethwa’s affidavit says

that Mr. Maseko was "sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment" on 7 October
2003. On the face of things, Mr. Maseko should have been released on or
before 7 October 2023. He should not be awaiting a further parole profile in
November 2026.
8 It is nonetheless likely that the table means only that Mr. Maseko was
sentenced to a life term on 7 October 2003, with a minimum non-parole period
of 20 years. However, given that the liberty of the individual is at stake, I do
not think that I can simply make that assumption. A copy of the warrant
committing Mr. Maseko to prison, together with a copy of the judgment
sentencing him , should be sufficient to address the issue fully. I intend to order
that these documents be placed before me w ithin two weeks of the date of this
judgment.
9 For all these reasons -
9.1 The first to fifteenth and seventeenth to twentieth applicants'
applications are dismissed, with each party paying their own costs.
9.2 The first respondent is directed, by no later than 1 September 2025 ,
to file a copy of the warrant of comm ittal applicable to the sixteenth
applicant, Collen Maseko, together w ith a copy of the trial judge's
judgment sentencing Mr. Maseko to incarceration.
4
SD J WILSON
Judge of the High Court

5

This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their legal
representatives by email, by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
Caselines, and by publication of the judgment to the South African Legal Information
Institute. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 18 August 2025.

DECIDED ON: 18 August 2025