Previous 11 / 27 Next

ACHPR African Cornmissinn on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 54. The Commission will now turn to examine whether the litigation that happened in High Court case file 31884/ 2015, in the Supreme Court case of SCA 354/19 and Constitutional Court case of CCT162/19, and which is the source of this Communication is indicative of the fact that local remedies had been exhausted. 55. The Commission notes that the Complainants filed an application for leave to appeal at the Constitutional Court, being the highest Court in the Respondent State. The Commission further notes that this application was dismissed on substantive grounds, which is that it did not bear any prospects of success, in addition to the other two grounds of lack of urgency and jurisdiction. The dismissal of an application for leave to appeal on the grounds that it bears no prospects of success is peremptory, it has the effect of extinguishing the claim and bringing finality to the procedure. The Commission takes the opinion that the Complainants exhausted local remedies. Article 56(6) of the Charter 56. Article 56(6) of the Charter states that Communications relating to human and Peoples' Rights ... shall be considered if they: are submitted within a reasonable period from the time local remedies are exhausted, or from the date the Commission is seized with the matter." The Complainants in this case received judgment from the Constitutional Court on the 29 th July 2019 and their Complaint was received by the Secretariat on the 23 rd September 2019. The Commission considers this to be a reasonable time and finds that the Communication complies with Article 56(6) of the Charter. Article 56(7) of the Charter 57. Article 56(7) of the Charter states that "Communications relating to human and Peoples' Rights ... shall be considered if they: do not deal with cases which have been settled by these states involved in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations, or the Charter of the 25 Organization of African Unity or the provisions of the present Charter." The rule is based on the non bis in idem and res judicata rules. 31 The Commission has previously found in Luke Munyandu Tembani and Benjamin John Freeth (represented Tjombe) v Angola and Thirteen Others that the provision requir 31 Communication 260/02 : Bakweri Land Claims Committee v Cameroon, 4 December 2004, HI Page Afun~\ Union\..!:, The African Commission on Human a 31 Bijilo Annex Layout. K West Goa Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: ( Fm;1il · :::111-h~ni, 1ftn);::afrir-.:=:1-11ninn 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