The applicants were seeking an order to prevent them from appearing in court to answer questions. They were subpoenaed to appear before the magistrate at Bloemfontein to be examined in regard to offences which were being investigated against Winnie Mandela. The appeal was upheld and the sentences imposed by the magistrate were set aside.

This is an application in which eight applicants, being relatives of certain detainees, claim as a matter of urgency that this Court should declare the detention orders issued by the second respondent unlawful and the detainees be released forthwith. The application was dismissed with costs to be paid by the applicants jointly and severally.

The applicants were now appealing against their convictions and sentences. The applicants were convicted of contravening section 1(1) (a) of the Trespass Act no.6 of 1959. The appeal succeeded, the conviction and sentences of all applicants were set aside.

The applicant was arrested at the African Food and Canning Workers' Union office in East London by members of the security branch of the South African Police. The applicant sued the respondent for damages in the sum of R25 000.00 for unlawful arrest and detention. The applicant was awarded R22 000.00.

The applicant was seeking relief against the sentence imposed on him by the respondent. The applicant, a medical doctor was convicted for refusing to render military service in the South African Defence Force on the grounds of conscience. The appeal succeeded.

The respondent in this appeal was detained in terms of emergency regulations. In April 1993 he received legal advice to the effect that the regulations under which he had been detained were invalid for being in conflict with Ciskei's Bill of Rights. He was advised to apply to court for an order declaring section 48 (1) of the Police Act to be unlawful for being in conflict with Ciskei's Bill of Rights. The appeal was upheld.

This application relates to the continued detention of the applicant's husband. The detention of David Motsiri Itsweng was declared unlawful, second respondent was ordered to release David Motsiri Itsweng forthwith and the first respondent to pay the costs of the application including those of the employment of two counsel by the applicant.

The applicant was seeking relief against the respondent for wrongful arrest, detention and assault. The applicant was arrested by two policemen in Indra Street, Brixton, Johannesburg. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant the sum of R265 000 including the interest and the costs of the application.

The applicant was arrested by the members of the South African Police because it was believed that he was a member of the consumer boycott committee. Upon release the applicant instituted action against the respondent, claiming damages from the respondent. The applicant's claim was dismissed with costs.

The applicants were seeking as a matter of urgency, an order declaring their arrest and detention unlawful and that the first and second respondents to release the applicants from custody and detention. The applicants were also praying for an order as to costs. The application was succesful.