Nortjé and Another v Minister of Correctional Services and Others

The appellants were long-term prisoners convicted of serious violent crimes and serving lengthy sentences in Pretoria Maximum Prison. On 13 November 1997 they were classified as A‑category prisoners, entitling them to substantial privileges. Without prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, they were transferred on 27 November 1997 to the C‑Max (Closed Maximum Security Unit), a special maximum‑security section with significantly harsher conditions and far fewer privileges. The transfer decision was taken by a deputy director acting under delegated authority, on the basis that the appellants posed a high escape risk due to alleged prior escape attempts. Four days after the transfer, the decision‑maker visited them and informed them of the reason for the transfer. The appellants challenged the lawfulness of the transfer, arguing that the decision was procedurally unfair because the audi alteram partem rule had not been observed.

The appeal succeeded with costs. The order of the court a quo was set aside and replaced with an order reviewing and setting aside the decision to transfer the appellants to the C‑Max section of Pretoria Maximum Prison, and directing the respondents to pay the appellants’ costs.

The case is an important authority on the application of the audi alteram partem rule in the prison context and confirms that prisoners retain the constitutional right to procedurally fair administrative action. It clarifies that transfers which materially reduce prisoners’ privileges may give rise to a legitimate expectation of a hearing, and that post‑decision hearings will only rarely satisfy the requirements of procedural fairness.