Previous 1 / 27 Next

Human Rights our Collective Responsibility DECISION OF THE AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS ON MERITS Communication 747/21 Jacobus Stephanus Van Heerden & Anor v The Republic of South Africa SUMMARY OF THE COMPLAINT 1. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Secretariat) received the Complaint on the 23rd September 2019. 2. The Parties in this Communication are as follows: The 1st Complainant is Jacobus Stephanus Yan Heerden, a male South African National and the sole Shareholder and Director of Amour Technology Systems (Pty) Ltd (ATS), a Company registered in South Africa which is the 2nd Complainant. The 3 rd Complainant is Liberty Fighters Network, a Voluntary Association in South Africa and the Representative of the 1st and 2nd Complainants. The Complainant indicated in their Observations on. Admissibility & Merits that the 3rd Complainant is the Representative of the first two Complainants and does not have an interest in the matter. 3. The Complaint presented against the Republic of South Africa (the Respondent State) is in respect of the decision of the High Court of South Africa in Case Number 31884/2015, which was subsequently appealed and upheld by the Supreme Court of Appeal in matters bearing numbers SCA 354/19, and the Constitutional Court in CCT162/19. (Herewith would worth-the-while to indicate the parties to these matters) 4. The Complainants allege that the Respondent State's Courts issued adverse rulings against them because they were self-actors. 5. They further allege that the Courts in the Respondent State never gave reasons for their rulings but simply issued arbitrary and prejudicial orders. 6. The matter arose from a business dispute between 2nd Complainant and DCDGroup Limited (Pty) (DCD). The former referred the dispute to arbitration on the 13th December 2013 but withdrew this reference on the 3 rd Jul ll P age Afri;;nr~-\ Union\Y The African Commission on Human 31 Bijilo Annex Layout. West Phone: (220) 230 4361 l=m~il· ~ 11- h~

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 747/21: Jacobus Stephanus Van Heerden & Anor V. The Republic of South Africa

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Equality Before the Law
Right to Fair Trial

Case Head Notes: The Complainants alleged that the Respondent State's courts issued adverse rulings against them because they were self-representing litigants. They also state that the Respondent State's courts issued arbitrary, and prejudicial orders, and did not give reasons for their rulings. The Complainants allege that their experience is part of a wider-scale of judicial corruption in which the courts treat self-representing litigants unfairly. The Commission found no violation of Articles 7 and 26 because it is a general, and established, legal standard in the Respondent State that a company cannot conduct a case in court, except by the appearance of counsel on its behalf. Accordingly the complainants did not experience differential treatment and their right to be heard was not infringed. Further, the Commission noted that, while the Supreme Court of Appeal did not provide a full written judgment when they dismissed the complainants application, they did provide reasons for the dismissal and that accordingly Article 7 was not violated. The Commission found no violation of Articles 2 and 3 because there was no discriminatory treatment regarding the complainants right to be heard, or right to have equal access to the courts and equal treatment by the law. The Commission stated that the Complainants were held to the same legal standards and procedures as other litigants and that they were not victims of arbitrary application of the law by judicial officers. The Commission found no violation of Articles 19 and 20 because individuals apperaing before the Commission, in their individual capacities, are not the subject of Peoples' rights. The Commission found no violation of Article 5 becuase the Complainants were not disrespected by the Courts. The Commission found no violation of Article 9 because they stated that the Complainants' allegation actually invoked Article 7, and that had already been dealth with. The Commission found no violation of Article 13 because the Complainants were not discriminated against, and it was not clear what element of the case invoked Article 13 rights.

Country

South Africa

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Nov 6, 2024

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 20 : Right to Self-Determination
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 7: Right to Fair Trial
ACHPR 9: Right to Receive Information and Free Expression
ACHPR 13: Right to Participate in Government
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 2: Freedom from Discrimination
ACHPR 20 : Right to Self-Determination
ACHPR 26 : Duty to Guarantee Independence of Courts
ACHPR 3: Right to Equality before the Law and Equal Protection of the Law
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Duration of Procedure

Sep 23, 2019 ~ Nov 6, 2024

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -30.559482

Longitude: 22.937506

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): South Africa

Primary Documents

Jacobus Stephanus Van Heerden & Anor v South Africa.pdf
Other
ML TOC
Download View