Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:14:43Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:14:43Z
dc.date.created 2011-11-30 en
dc.identifier.citation [2012] ZACC 16
dc.identifier.citation 2012 (5) SA 467 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2012 (10) BCLR 1017 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3660
dc.title Minister of Home Affairs and Others v Tsebe and Others (Amnesty International as Amicus Curiae); Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another v Tsebe and Others (Amnesty International as Amicus Curiae) en
dc.title.alternative CCT110/11 en
dc.title.alternative CCT126/11
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT110/11 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT126/11
dc.contributor.judge Zondo AJ Majority judgment
dc.contributor.judge Cameron J separate judgment
dc.contributor.judge Yacoob J dissenting judgment
dc.date.judgment 27 July 2012
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3660/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28294%20Kb%29-19508.pdf?sequence=46&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis Application for leave to appeal forbidding the deportation or extradition of a person who faces the real risk of the death penalty being imposed and executed in the receiving state, where that state has not given the requisite assurance that the death penalty will not be carried out. Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The case could not be distinguished from Mohamed and Another v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2001] ZACC 18, 2001 (3) SA 893 (CC) (where the Court held that a person may not be surrendered to a country where he or she faces the real risk of the death penalty being imposed and executed) and that there was also no evidence that Mohamed was wrong. It would be in breach of the rights to life, dignity and not to be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment to extradite or deport a person to a country that country refuses to provide the requisite assurance and where the person faces a real risk of the death penalty being imposed and executed. The rights enshrined in the Constitution applied to all persons in South Africa, and not only to its citizens. In a separate judgment, Yacoob ADCJ held that the High Court rightly and persuasively decided the case before it and that leave to appeal should not have been granted at all. Judgment: Zondo AJ (Mogoeng CJ, Cameron J (except for [55], [56] and [60] to [62]), Froneman J (except for [55], [56] and [60] to [62]), Jafta J, Khampepe J, Maya AJ, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J (except for [55], [56] and [60] to [62]) and Van der Westhuizen J (except for [55], [56] and [60] to [62]) concurring). Separate judgment: Yacoob ADCJ.
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal directly to the CC against a judgment and order of the Full Court of the South Gauteng High Court: Tsebe and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Others; Pitsoe v Minister of Home Affairs and Others 2012 (1) BCLR 77 (GSJ)


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account