Case Law[2023] ZAGPPHC 705South Africa
Ex Parte Krejcir (B4170/2013) [2023] ZAGPPHC 705 (13 August 2023)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)
13 August 2023
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 705
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Ex Parte Krejcir (B4170/2013) [2023] ZAGPPHC 705 (13 August 2023)
Ex Parte Krejcir (B4170/2013) [2023] ZAGPPHC 705 (13 August 2023)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_705.html
sino date 13 August 2023
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE
NO:
B4170/2023
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
Date:
13 August 2023
In
the Ex Parte Application of:
RADOVAN
KREJCIR
In
re:
RADOVAN
KREJCIR
APPLICANT
And
HEAD
OF PRISON, KGOSI MAMPURU MAXIMUM
FIRST RESPONDENT
CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY
AREA
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
SECOND RESPONDENT
CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES
REGIONAL
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
THIRD RESPONDENT
CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES
NATIONAL
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
FOURTH RESPONDENT
CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES
MINISTER
OF JUSTICE AND CORRECTIONAL
FIFTH RESPONDENT
SERVICES
JUDGMENT
# DE VOS AJ
DE VOS AJ
[1]
The
applicant seeks urgent ex parte relief. The applicant is currently
serving a 35 years sentence at the Kgosi Mampuru II C-Max
Prison in
Pretoria. The relief sought generally relates to the applicant being
provided with certain medications and consulting
with specialist
physicians.
[1]
The applicant
asserts a constitutional right to access medical care.
[2]
The applicant launched the proceedings on the evening of Friday, 11
August 2023,
and requested a hearing on Saturday, 12 August 2023, at
10:00. The Court considered the allegations that the applicant was
suffering
mental and physical distress as he was being deprived of
the necessary medical care. Based on these allegations, the Court
permitted
the matter to be heard on shortened timeframes and
out-of-ordinary court hours.
[3]
The relief
is being sought on an urgent basis. The papers before the Court have
been deposed to by the applicant's attorney, Ms
Otrebski. Ms
Otrebski tells the Court that she consulted with the applicant on 4
August 2023 and was informed that he had
not received “all of
his chronic medication”.
[2]
The Court is told that the medications treat the applicant's
long-term psychiatric issues and chronic pain. Ms Otrebski contends
that if not given his medication, the applicant will suffer serious
dangers, including seizures, depression and suicidal thoughts,
hallucinations, cardiac arrest and/or death. Ms Ostrebski relies on
the reports from the applicant’s medical practitioner
Doctor
Loewke. Doctor Loewke’s reports date from 22 April
2022 to 11 July 2023, in which the consequences of
the applicant's
medicine not being provided are set out.
[4]
Ms Otrebski further tells the Court that the applicant had a seizure
on the
eve of 10 August 2023, and the applicant, consequently, lost
consciousness. When he regained consciousness, he pressed the
intercom
so that he could be assisted. The applicant told Ms
Ostrebski that he was being ignored. Ms Otrebski tells the Court that
the applicant’s
health has seriously deteriorated due to the
lack of medical assistance. These allegations are
alarming. However, before
the Court can consider whether they satisfy
the test for urgency, the Court must consider whether a case has been
made out to launch
these proceedings on an ex parte basis.
[5]
Ex parte
proceedings depart from the principle of audi alteram partem. It is a
fundamental principle of the administration of justice
that relief
should not be granted without permitting an affected person to be
heard. The principle of audi alteram partem is sacrosanct,
and the
only times that the Court will consider a matter behind a litigant's
back are in exceptional circumstances. Whilst the
principle is not
absolute, it is "very rare" that a case is so urgent that
there is no time to give notice.
[3]
[6]
The applicant explains the need for bringing the application on an ex
parte
basis in one paragraph in the Founding Affidavit –
“
The
reason that this application is brought on an ex parte basis is
because giving notice to the Respondents would defeat the purposed
of
the application. The prison is aware that they are responsible for
providing adequate medical treatment to the applicant.”
[7]
This is the entirety of the allegations made in support of launching
the proceedings
ex parte. The allegation in support of launching the
proceedings ex parte is a conclusion with no facts supporting it. The
applicant
has to plead facts which indicate how notice to the prison
authorities would defeat the purpose of the application. No such
facts
are pleaded. Only the conclusion that the legal test has been
met. The allegations to urgency do not go as far as stating the
matter
is so urgent and the applicant’s situation so serious
that it outweighs providing notice or a hearing.
[8]
The Court notes the distress complained of. However, there is no
factual basis
laid for seeking relief on an ex parte notice. It
weighs with the Court that the issue is not just notice but also the
prison authorities'
ability to put facts and submissions before the
Court.
[9]
The applicant has not given the Court a basis to conclude that there
are exceptional
circumstances or that this is one of the rare cases
where the principle of audi alteram partem can be departed from. The
Court
has not been told why the relief cannot be sought – or
will not be able to be obtained – if notice is given to the
prison authorities.
[10]
On this basis, the Court cannot grant the relief sought on an ex
parte basis. The Court makes
no finding in relation to the relief
sought or whether it is urgent. The Court does so to not hamper the
applicant's ability to
approach the Court in a different format.
Order
[11]
As a result, the following order is granted:
a)
That application is dismissed.
I De Vos
Acting Judge of the High
Court
Delivered:
This judgment is handed down electronically by uploading it to the
electronic file of this matter on CaseLines.
As a courtesy gesture,
it will be sent to the parties/their legal representatives by email.
Counsel for the
Applicant:
NC Otrebski
Instructed by:
Otrebski Attorneys
Inc
Date of the
hearing:
12 August 2023
Date of judgment:
13 August 2023
[1]
Specifically, the applicant asks the Court to grant five orders in
his favour. First, an order immediately moved the applicant
to the
hospital section of the Kgosi Mampuru Correctional Facility. Second,
within seven days of the order, he is taken to Mediclinic
Mediform
in Pretoria Central. Third, the respondents provide the applicant
with his chronic medication. The Court has been given
a list of this
chronic medication, including chronic pain medication and
antipsychotics. The allegation is that the applicant
usually
receives his medications on the 28
th
of every month, and he has not received the medication. Fourth, the
applicant wants access to contact "privileged consultations
with all the medical practitioners of his choice, including the
exchange of medical documents." Fifth, the applicant
be
allowed to contact his medical practitioners at his request.
[2]
The allegation is not provided with any more specificity. The Court
is not told whether some were provided and others not or
whether all
were provided but insufficient quantities. Ms Ostrebski provides the
Court with a list of 14 types of medication.
They range from
sleeping pills (Stilnox) to treating seizures (Diazepam). The Court
is not told which of this medicine the applicant
did not receive,
only that he did not receive "all of this chronic medication."
[3]
Tsilane and Another v S and Others (2023/072559) [2023] ZAGPJHC 858
(4 August 2023)
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
C.B v K.E.B (4625/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2053 (29 December 2023)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 2053High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)98% similar
M.B.R v K.R and Another (37082/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 587 (14 July 2023)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 587High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)98% similar
Ex Parte Skosana (004181/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 904 (15 August 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 904High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)98% similar
C.K.N and Another v Villa Siesta Pet Retreat CC and Another (059704/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1230 (28 November 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1230High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)98% similar
K.R.R and Another v K.R and Others (2023-130586) [2024] ZAGPPHC 891 (5 September 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 891High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)98% similar