Previous 25 / 27 Next

ACHPR , African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility reasons to dismiss the application for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court in Case Number 31884/2015.63 Article 9 of the Charter provides that: 1. Even; individual shall have the right to receive information. 2. Every individual shall have the right to express and disseminate his opinions within the law. 99. The Commission notes that these allegations, while being raised under the abovementioned right, invoke Article 7 of the Charter as they speak to the Complainants to receive information from the Courts in a judicial context. The Commission recalls its analysis above on the Complainants' right to have their cause heard where it found that the Complainants were indeed informed of the reasons for the dismissal of their application for leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court. The · Commission finds no violation of Article 9. Alleged violation of Article 13 and 20 100. The Complainants have argued that they were discriminated as selfrepresenting litigants and denied equal access to the public service and property in their countries in violation of their rights protected in Article 13(2) and (3) respectively. 64 Article 13 of the Charter reads: 1. Even; citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law. • 2. Even; citizen shall have the right of equal access to the public service of his country. 3. Even; individual shall have the right ofaccess to public properhJ and services in strict equalihj ofall persons before the law. In its decision on Civil Liberties Organization (in respect of Bar Association) v Nigeria, 65 the Commission stated a general principle on this right, to the effect that: 101. Competent authorities should not enact provisions which would limit the exercise of this freedom. Competent authorities should not override constitutional provisions or undermine fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution and int human rights standards. 63 Complainants Observations on Admissibility and Merits (2022) para 47-48 64 Complainants' Observations on Admissibility and Merits (2022) para 49 and 50 65 Communication 101/93, para 15 25 I Page ~:)ilF,flk Africant \1 Union\:.? The African Commission on Human and Peop 31 Bijilo Annex Layout, Kombo Nort West Coast Region Gambia Phone: (220) 230 4361 Fax: (220) 441 05 04 l=m~il· .::11 1-h.::1ni1 ll/n).::1frir..::1-1in inn 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