Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others v Wilhelm Pretorius and Others [2023] ZASCA 155 (17 November 2023)

The case involves an appeal by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, the National Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, and the Head of Zonderwater Prison against a judgment by the Gauteng Division of the High Court. The respondents in the case are Wilhelm Pretorius, Dr. Johan Pretorius, and Dr. Johan (Lets) Pretorius. The Pretorius family members were long-term prisoners at Zonderwater Correctional Centre in Gauteng, serving sentences ranging from 20 to 30 years. They were pursuing academic studies while incarcerated and sought permission to use their personal computers in their cells to further their education.

The respondents challenged the Policy Procedures Directorate Formal Education, which prohibited them from using personal computers in their cells for academic purposes. The High Court ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the policy discriminatory under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act. The court ordered that the respondents be allowed to use their personal computers in their cells as long as they remained registered students at recognised institutions.

The appellants appealed this decision to the full court, which upheld the High Court's ruling. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal. However, during the appeal process, the Pretorius family members were released on parole, rendering the appeal technically moot. Despite this, the appellants chose to pursue the appeal.

The court considered whether, despite the mootness of the case, it was in the interests of justice to decide on the appeal. The court noted that the High Court judge who made the initial ruling was not designated as a presiding officer of the equality court, raising jurisdictional issues. In a related case, the court had set aside a similar order due to jurisdictional concerns.

Ultimately, the court's decision in the related case, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Ntuli, had implications for the present case. The court's order in Ntuli allowed any registered student in a correctional center to use personal computers for study purposes. As a result, the High Court's order in the present case did not need correction.

The court dismissed the appeal with costs, holding that the appellants should bear the respondents' costs due to persisting with the appeal despite the respondents' release on parole. The court found that deviating from the usual cost allocation rules was not warranted in this case.

The core legal principle underlying the decision in this case is that the court considered the mootness of the matter but also assessed whether it was in the interests of justice to decide on the appeal despite its mootness. The court stressed the importance of ensuring that decisions are made in the interests of justice, even if the practical effect of the decision may be limited due to changed circumstances. Additionally, the court highlighted the jurisdictional requirement that a judge must be designated as a presiding officer of the equality court to entertain claims under the Equality Act. Failure to meet this requirement can impact the validity of orders made under the Act.

The court relied on the case of Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others v Ntuli (Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional services intervening as amicus curiae) (539/2022) [2023] ZASCA 146 (8 November 2023) in its reasoning process.