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 844
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Headman v Head of Prison: Ebongweni Super Maximum Correctional Centre and Others (149050/2026) [2026] ZAGPPHC 844 (29 July 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case number: 149050/2026
Heard on: 16 July 2026
Judgment: 29 July 2026
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/ NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/ NO
(3)
REVISED
DATE
: 29 JULY 2026
SIGNATURE
In the
matter between:
Dlamini Thembeleli Headman
Applicant
and
Head
Of
Prison: Ebongweni
First Respondent
Super
Maximum Correctional Centre
National
Commissioner Of Correctional Service
Second Respondent
Head
Of Prison: Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional
Service
(C-Max)
Third Respondent
Judgment
Strijdom,
J
Introduction
[1]
In this matter the applicant seeks an order on an urgent basis in the
following terms:
1.1
that the decision of the first respondent taken on 15 October 2025 to
transfer the applicant to C-Max
Pretoria be declared arbitrary,
unlawful, and consequently set aside;
1.2
that the respondents be ordered to immediately remove the
applicant from C-Max Pretoria (Kgosi
Mampuru II Correctional Centre)
and accommodate him in a medium security centre of their
operational choice within the
KwaZulu-Natal Province, preferably the
Westville Medium Correctional Centre;
1.3
that insofar as it may be necessary, an order be granted in
terms of
Section 9(1)(b)
of the
Promotion of Administrative Justice
Act 3 of 2000
condoning the late institution of this application in
respect of the impugned administrative decision referenced above;
1.4
that applicant be exempted from the obligation to exhaust
internal remedies prior to instituting
this application.
Background Facts
[2]
The applicant is domiciled in the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Province. His
entire family and his primary support
network are situated within the
province.
[3]
In 2022, he was convicted on charges of murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment, along with an additional cumulative
sentence
of approximately 100 years.
[4]
Prior to his conviction and sentencing, his initial centre of
admission was the Westville
Correctional Centre. During 2021, while
still an awaiting-trial detainee, he was transferred to the Kokstad
Super Maximum Correctional
Centre ("Ebongweni"). He was
sentenced while detained at Ebongweni. In November 2022, he was
transferred from Ebongweni back
to Westville Medium
Correctional Centre. He remained incarcerated at Westville
Medium from November 2022 until April
2025, at which point he was
transferred back to Ebongweni.
[5]
He remained detained
at Ebongweni having completed the requisite maximum
detention period in Ebongweni, he formally applied for a
transfer back to Westville. He was subsequently informed verbally
that
his transfer application had been approved. He was subsequently
transferred to the C-Max facility at Kgosi Mampuru II Correctional
Centre in Pretoria and not to Westville.
[6]
Prior to the expiration of his mandatory three-year term at
Ebongweni, the institutional authorities
actively prepared him for
reintegration into a medium-security environment.
Issues
To Be Determined
[7]
The issues requiring determination are:
7.1
whether the application is inherently urgent;
7.2
whether the transfer of the applicant to C-Max facility and his
continued detention are lawful;
7.3
whether the applicant ought to have pursued internal remedies,
specifically the complaints procedure
under
section 21
of the Act.
Common
Cause Facts
[8]
The following facts are common cause and not
seriously disputed:
8.1
the applicant was transferred from Ebongweni to C-Max facility in
October 2025;
8.2
the transfer of the applicant was done in terms of
Regulation
25(1)(b)
for security reasons;
8.3
prior to his transfer to C-Max, the applicant completed the requisite
detention period of three months
in Ebongweni;
8.4
the applicant has been incarcerated in C-Max for 9 months and is
still in C-Max;
8.5
in terms of the Standard Operating Procedures ("SOP")
governing the handling of offenders
in maximum security facilities,
offenders are not supposed to be detained in a maximum security
facility for a period exceeding
3 years. In light of the 3-year cap,
the applicant was supposed to be transferred back to a medium
security facility; which ordinarily
would be his centre of origin;
and
8.6
written reasons were not provided to the applicant prior to or after
his transfer to C-Max.
Internal
Remedies
[9]
The respondents contend that the applicant ought to have pursued
internal remedies, specifically the
complaints procedure under
section 21
of the Act, before approaching the Court.
[10] The
applicant states that he persistently raised complaints with
correctional officials regarding the unlawfulness
of his transfer,
but such complaints yielded no effective response or redress. The
respondents do not dispute that no internal
process resulted in a
reconsideration.
[11]
Section
21
falls within Chapter III, Part A of the
Correctional Services Act
111 of 1998
and regulates complaints and requests by inmates relating
primarily to the ordinary day-to-day day conditions of detention,
including
issues such as hygiene, nutrition, exercise, access to
healthcare, and related prison conditions.
[12] In
my view, decisions relating to parole, classification or the transfer
of inmates fall outside the scope
of these internal complaint
mechanisms.
Section 21
does not constitute an available, competent or
appropriate alternative remedy.
[13]
This court has inherent jurisdiction, and the respondent chose to
approach this court.
[1]
The Legal Framework
[14]
The
Correctional Services Act 111 of 1998
regulates discipline,
transfers and conditions of detention.
[15]
Regulation 25(1)(a)
provides that where an inmate is to be
transferred, the inmate must be informed of the reasons for the
proposed transfer and afforded
an opportunity to make
representations.
[16]
Regulation 25(1)(b)
provides that where transfer is for security
reasons, the inmate must still be informed of the reasons as soon as
practicable after
admission to the new facility and must be afforded
an opportunity to make representations.
[17]
The legal position is now settled that the reasons contemplated in
Regulation 25
must be conveyed in writing, and the failure to provide
written reasons and allow representations constituted a violation of
Regulation 25
, Section 35(2) of the Constitution, and the
audi
alteram partem
rule.
[2]
[18]
Even transfers effected in terms of Regulation 25(1)(b) for security
reasons require written reasons and
procedural fairness.
[3]
[19]
The respondents contend that the applicant’s transfer was done
legally and in terms of Regulation 25(1)(b)
for security reasons.
[20] Mr
Hudson Soniabeso Dalwana stated that he received the applicant at
C-Max and conducted an interview with
him at which he explained to
the applicant that he was transferred for security reasons.
[4]
[21]
According to the evidence before me, the applicant was neither given
any prior written reasons before the
transfer to C-Max as required by
Regulation 25(1)(a); conversely, there were no written reasons
provided after his transfer as
required by Regulation 25(1)(b). There
is no factual dispute that Regulation 25 was violated.
Urgency
[22]
The respondents submitted that the applicant created his own urgency
in that he waited 8 months to bring
this application. It was further
argued that the applicant does have other remedies available; he
could have approached JICS and
lodged a complaint against the alleged
transfer.
[23]
Where unlawful detention is alleged, and
prima facie
established, the matter is
sui generis
; the usual enquiry into
self-created urgency and delay yields to the higher constitutional
imperative to end ongoing illegality.
In this matter, the unlawful
detention is ongoing and continues.
[24]
The principle that unlawful detention warrants urgent intervention
cannot be ignored. I am satisfied that
the matter is sufficiently
urgent to be heard.
Conclusion
[25] I
conclude that the respondents’ decision to transfer the
applicant to C-Max was unlawful, procedurally
unfair and
unconstitutional.
[26]
The applicant’s continued detention at C-Max constitutes an
ongoing violation of his rights under Section
35 of the Constitution
and Regulation 25.
[27] In
the result, the following order is made:
1.
The decision of the first respondent, taken on 15 October 2025, to
transfer the applicant
to C-Max Pretoria, is declared unlawful and is
set aside.
2.
The respondents are ordered to immediately remove the applicant from
C-Max Pretoria and accommodate
him in a Medium Security Centre of
their operational choice within the KwaZulu-Natal Province,
preferably the Westville Medium
Correctional Centre.
3.
The applicant is exempted from the obligation to exhaust internal
remedies prior to the instituting
of this application.
4.
The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application on a
party-and-party scale,
to be taxed on Scale C.
STRIJDOM J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
Appearances:
For
the Applicant:
Adv. D.B. Melaphi
Instructed
by:
M.E. Makgopa Attorneys
For
the Respondents:
Adv. N. Mashabela
Instructed
by:
State Attorney
[1]
See
Mankhili v Johannesburg Prison (Sun City Prison) and Others
(2022/19104) [2023] ZAGPJ HC 1077.
[2]
See
Tshikane v Minister of Correctional Services and Others 2015 (2)
SACR 99 (GJ).
[3]
See
Rakabaele Daniel Lenyone v National Commissioner of Correctional
Services and Another (2026-080589) [2026] ZAG PP HC.
[4]
Confirmatory
affidavit to the answering affidavit – p. 008 (a) 6–7.