About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 625
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Khedeni v National Commissioner of Correctional Service and Others (2026-077285) [2026] ZAGPPHC 625 (18 June 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 2026-077285
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED:
YES
/NO
DATE 18/06/2026
SIGNATURE
In
the matter between:
BONGANI
KHEDENI
Applicant
and
NATIONAL
COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICE
1
st
Respondent
THE
MINISTER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
2
nd
Respondent
THE
HEAD OF PRISON: KGOSI MAMPURU II
CORRECTIONAL
CENTRE C-MAX
3
rd
Respondent
JUDGMENT
MBONGWE,
J:
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The Applicant, Mr. Khedeni Bongani, seeks urgent relief declaring his
transfer from Kgosi Mampuru II
Correctional Centre (C-Max) to
Leeuwkop Medium B on 8 March 2026 unlawful, unconstitutional, and to
be set aside. He further seeks
an order directing his return to
Baviaanspoort Medium Correctional Centre.
[2]
The Respondents oppose the application, contending that the transfer
was lawful, rational, and necessitated
by security concerns, and that
the application lacks urgency.
URGENCY
[3]
It is trite that an applicant seeking urgent relief must demonstrate
circumstances rendering the matter
urgent and why substantial redress
cannot be obtained in due course.
[1]
[4]
The Applicant argues that unlawful detention is inherently urgent
[2]
The Respondents counter that urgency is self-created and that
multiple identical urgent applications amount to an abuse of process.
[5]
While the Court is mindful of the caution against fragmented
litigation,
[3]
the principle
that unlawful detention warrants urgent intervention cannot be
ignored. I am satisfied that the matter is sufficiently
urgent to be
heard.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
[6]
The Applicant was initially transferred to C-Max in July 2025, a
transfer later conceded by the Respondents
to have been irregular. On
8 March 2026, he was transferred to Leeuwkop Medium B.
[7]
The Respondents allege that the Applicant was implicated in serious
misconduct, including cartel activity
and contraband smuggling,
necessitating stricter security measures. The Applicant disputes
these allegations, noting he was never
charged or found guilty of
contraband possession.
LEGAL
FRAMEWORK
[8]
Regulation 25(1)(a) requires that reasons for transfer be conveyed to
the inmate with an opportunity
to make representations. Regulation
25(1)(b) permits omission of prior notice for security transfers but
requires reasons to be
given “as soon as practicable”
thereafter.
[9]
Section 22 of the Correctional Services Act empowers authorities to
transfer inmates for security and
good order. However, such powers
must be exercised lawfully, reasonably, and procedurally fairly.
[4]
ANALYSIS
[10]
The Applicant was not furnished with written reasons either prior to
or after the transfer. This omission
constitutes non-compliance with
Regulation 25(1)(a) and (b).
[11]
The Respondents’ reliance on security concerns is undermined by
the absence of objective evidence
that the Applicant posed a risk.
The mere allegation of misconduct, without charges or findings, does
not suffice.
[12]
The
audi
alteram partem
principle requires that an affected person be heard before adverse
administrative action is taken.
[5]
The failure to afford the Applicant such opportunity renders the
decision procedurally unfair.
[13]
While correctional authorities enjoy discretion in inmate
placement,
[6]
such discretion
must be exercised within the bounds of legality and fairness.
[14]
The Respondents’ contention that Section 35 rights are not
implicated is misplaced. Section 35(2)
guarantees detainees the right
to be informed promptly of reasons for detention and to conditions
consistent with human dignity.
The failure to provide reasons
infringes these rights.
PREJUDICE
AND SEPARATION OF POWERS
[15]
The Respondents argue that returning the Applicant would compromise
institutional security and amount to
judicial overreach. While courts
must exercise restraint in operational matters,
[7]
they cannot abdicate their duty to ensure legality and constitutional
compliance.
[16]
The Applicant has demonstrated prejudice in being transferred without
due process. The Respondents’
fears of security compromise
remain speculative in the absence of proven misconduct.
CONCLUSION
[17]
The transfer of the Applicant on 8 March 2026 was procedurally
unfair, unlawful, and unconstitutional.
[18]
The application succeeds.
ORDER
1.
The decision of the Respondents to transfer the Applicant from Kgosi
Mampuru II Correctional Centre (C-Max)
to Leeuwkop Medium B on 8
March 2026 is declared unlawful and set aside.
2.
The Respondents are directed to return the Applicant to Baviaanspoort
Medium Correctional Centre forthwith.
3.
The Respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application on
the attorney-and-client scale.
MPN
MBONGWE
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION
PRETORIA
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant:
Mr D. B. MELAPHI
Instructed by:
M.E. Makgopa
Attorneys
For the
Respondents:
Ms A. K. SITHOLE
Instructed by:
The State Attorney
Date of Hearing:
29 April 2026
Date of
Judgment:
18 June 2026
THIS
JUDGMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES’ LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES AND UPLOADED ONTO CASELINES ON 18 JUNE
2026.
[1]
Luna
Meubel Vervaardigers v Makin
1977
(4) SA 135 (W).
[2]
Mcube v
Minister of Correctional Services
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1157.
[3]
Absa
Bank Ltd v De Villiers
2001
(1) SA 481 (SCA).
[4]
Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Association v President of RSA
2000 (2) SA 674 (CC).
[5]
Nortjé
v Minister van Korrektiewe Dienste
[2001] 2 All SA 623 (A).
[6]
Minister
of Correctional Services v Tobani
2003 (5) SA 126 (E).
[7]
National
Commissioner of Correctional Services v Maseko
2011 (2) SACR 315
(SCA).