Ayres and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (CCT 47/21) [2022] ZACC 12; 2022 (5) BCLR 523 (CC); 2022 (2) SACR 123 (CC) (25 March 2022)

Ayres and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (CCT 47/21) [2022] ZACC 12; 2022 (5) BCLR 523 (CC); 2022 (2) SACR 123 (CC) (25 March 2022)

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court was bound by its prior decision in Smit, which declared section 63 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it delegated plenary legislative power to the Minister. The High Court's failure to apply the Smit precedent was a breach of the doctrine of precedent and the rule of law. However, since the Constitutional Court had already declared the provision invalid, the High Court could not grant the relief sought by the applicants, and the application was correctly dismissed on the merits. The costs order of the High Court was set aside because the applicants had acted properly in bringing the Smit...

Citation
[2022] ZACC 12
Parties
Applicant: Gregory Craig Ayres; Applicant: Valeri Lazanov Nikolov; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services; Respondent: Minister of Health
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 March 2022
Case Number
CCT 47/21
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Directly to the Constitutional Court From the Kwa Zulu Natal Local Division, Durban
Outcome
Leave to appeal on the merits is refused; leave to appeal against the costs order is granted and upheld; the costs order of the High Court is set aside and replaced; each party to pay their own costs in the Constitutional Court.
Judges
Zondo, Madlanga, Madondo, Mhlantla, Majiedt, Pillay, Rogers, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi
Legal Topics
Doctrine of Precedent, Delegation of Legislative Power, Rule of Law, Constitutional Invalidity, Costs Order
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Doctrine of Precedent Delegation of Legislative Power Rule of Law Constitutional Invalidity Costs Order

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory Craig Ayres

Applicant

Valeri Lazanov Nikolov

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Respondent

Minister of Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Directly to the Constitutional Court From the Kwa Zulu Natal Local Division, Durban

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 63 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of plenary legislative power to the executive.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was bound by the Constitutional Court's decision in Smit regarding the invalidity of section 63 of the Drugs Act.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order of the High Court should be set aside in light of the respondents' failure to bring the Smit judgment to the attention of the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court was bound by its prior decision in Smit, which declared section 63 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it delegated plenary legislative power to the Minister. The High Court's failure to apply the Smit precedent was a breach of the doctrine of precedent and the rule of law. However, since the Constitutional Court had already declared the provision invalid, the High Court could not grant the relief sought by the applicants, and the application was correctly dismissed on the merits. The costs order of the High Court was set aside because the applicants had acted properly in bringing the Smit...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal on the merits is refused; leave to appeal against the costs order is granted and upheld; the costs order of the High Court is set aside and replaced; each party to pay their own costs in the Constitutional Court.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal on the merits is refused.
  • Leave to appeal against the order of costs is granted.