The applicant intends making an application to the court for an order to permit this application to be heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6(12) and to declare the detention of Petrus Abdul Mphehlo wrongful, unlawful and of no force and effect. The detention was declared wrongful, unlawful and of no effect.

The applicants seek an order for the immediate release of the detainees from detention. The applicants are the wives of the detainees and alleged that their arrest and detention was wrongful and unlawful. The detainees are two attorneys and partners in a firm known as Smith, Tabata and Van Heerden and were arrested by the security police in King Williams Town. Application was dismissed with costs including of two counsel.

The applicant is the girlfriend of the detainee and seeks an order declaring the detention of the detainee to be unlawful, setting aside his detention and his release forthwith. The detention of the detainee was declared unlawful and the applicant was entitled to the relief claimed by her.

The applicant was seeking relief against the respondents by claiming compensation for damages he suffered during arrest and detention. The applicant was awarded R1000.00 against both defendants, jointly and severally.

This is an appeal against the court's ruling that the State President of South Africa has exceeded his powers. The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The applicant was seeking an order to declare the following regulations to be of no force and effect in law: regulation 7(i)(a) and any part of regulation of regulation 12(b), the reference to the United Democratic Front in the prohibition order and the definition of "news agency business" contained in regulation 1, 11 and sub paragraph (xi) of paragraph (a) of the subversive statement in regulation 1 and 9(2)(a)(v) of the media emergency regulations. The application was dismissed with costs.

The question which arises in this appeal is whether the decision of a lieutenant in the South African Police to detain the applicant in terms of Regulation 3(1) of Proclamation 109 of 1986 was liable to be set aside. The applicant is a thirteen year old school pupil living with his parents in Sebokeng. The appeal was set aside with costs that also include those of the employment of two counsel.

The applicant was seeking an order directing the respondents to release him from detention. The applicant was arrested under the State of emergency by policemen acting on instructions from their captain. The application was dismissed with costs.

This is an application for the release of the applicant who was held in terms of the Emergency Regulations. The applicant was a 24 year old student at the University of Cape Town, who was arrested distributing UDF pamphlets in Woodstock at about 12.30 am. The continued detention of the applicant under Regulation 3(3) was declared to be unlawful and the respondents were directed forthwith to release the applicant from detention. The respondent was also ordered to pay the applicant's costs and those of the two counsel.

This is an appeal against the magistrate's judgment in which he was awarded R300 for injuries sustained while in detention. The applicant was arrested on a charge of "drunkenness" and left in the back of the police van with other detainees the whole night and in the process he sustained injuries. The appeal succeeded with costs and the magistrate judgment was set aside.