Previous 3 / 27 Next

{ ;:~1 ~oo:mJ 6~.ttEB Human Rights ou, Human and Peoples' Rights Collective Responsibility Supreme Court of Appeal, being the aforementioned SCA 354/19. On the 30th May 2019, the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the application on the grounds that it had " no prospect of success in an appeal and there is no other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard". 15. The Complainant then approached the Constitutional Court on an urgent basis under CCT162/19 seeking to appeal the decision of the High Court on the 3 applications. The Constitutional Court dismissed the application on the grounds that it was not urgent; it did not engage the Court's jurisdiction and bore no prospects of success. 16. The Complainants allege that their experience is part of a larger scale of judicial corruption in which the courts treat self-representing litigants unfairly. They allege that as a result of this judicial maltreatment, they have suffered financial losses and have had their rights violated. ARTICLES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED 17. The Complainants submit that the Respondent State has violated Articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 19, 20, and 26 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Charter). PROCEDURE 18. The.Complaint was seized by the Working Group on Communications under the 2010 Rules of Procedure of the Commission at the 33rd Extraordinary Session held in The Gambia between the 12th and 19th July 2021; 19. On the 15 th December 2021, the Secretariat informed the Respondent State of the seizure of this matter and transmitted the Complaint and seizure decision to the Respondent State; 20. On the 17th October 2022, the Complainants submitted their observations on Admissibility and Merits of the Communication; 21. The Complainant's observations on Admissibility and Merits were on the 18th October 2022 transmitted to the Respondent State 22. The Secretariat of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) wrote the Respondent State repeatedly throughout 2022 requesting their submission of the Observations on Admissibility and Merits, to no avail 23. On the 7th of June 2023, the Secretaria ~---Complainants' submissions to the Respondent State; 3I Page Afunr-,., Union\ Y The Af d Peoples' Rights mbo North District, st Region Gambia ax: (220) 441 05 04 ni1 1lfm::1frir-~-1ininn nrn

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
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

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

Primary Documents

Notifications