Chagi and Others v Special Investigating Unit (CCT 101/07) [2008] ZACC 22; 2009 (2) SA 1 (CC); 2009 (3) BCLR 227 (CC) ; 2009 (1) SACR 339 (CC) (3 December 2008)

Chagi and Others v Special Investigating Unit (CCT 101/07) [2008] ZACC 22; 2009 (2) SA 1 (CC); 2009 (3) BCLR 227 (CC) ; 2009 (1) SACR 339 (CC) (3 December 2008)

The Constitutional Court held that the liabilities of the First Special Investigating Unit were not extinguished by the 2001 Proclamation. Section 13 of the SIU Act and section 12(2)(c) of the Interpretation Act make it clear that rights and liabilities accrued under the repealed proclamation remain unaffected unless a contrary intention is evident, which was not the case here. The President had no power to extinguish or transfer such liabilities by proclamation. The correct procedure was to cite the head of the First Unit as nominal defendant, even though the unit had been disestablished, because the liability remained with the First Unit. The Supreme Court of Appeal erred in holding...

Citation
[2008] ZACC 22
Parties
Applicant: Wilmot Mandla Chagi and 29 Others; Respondent: Special Investigating Unit
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2008
Case Number
CCT 101/07
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court From the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; orders of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal set aside; special plea dismissed; matter referred back to the High Court.
Judges
Yacoob, Langa, Kroon, Madala, Mokgoro, Nkabinde, O'Regan, Van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
State Liability, Interpretation Act Section 12 2 C, Special Investigating Units Act, Nominal Defendant, Repeal of Proclamation, Delictual Claims Against State Entities
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Delict State Liability Interpretation Act Section 12 2 C Special Investigating Units Act Nominal Defendant Repeal of Proclamation +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilmot Mandla Chagi and 29 Others

Applicant

Special Investigating Unit

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court From the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the liabilities of the First Special Investigating Unit were extinguished by the 2001 Proclamation.
  2. 2 Whether the liabilities of the First Unit were transferred to the Second Unit or remained with the First Unit.
  3. 3 Whether the correct entity was cited in the summons and particulars of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the liabilities of the First Special Investigating Unit were not extinguished by the 2001 Proclamation. Section 13 of the SIU Act and section 12(2)(c) of the Interpretation Act make it clear that rights and liabilities accrued under the repealed proclamation remain unaffected unless a contrary intention is evident, which was not the case here. The President had no power to extinguish or transfer such liabilities by proclamation. The correct procedure was to cite the head of the First Unit as nominal defendant, even though the unit had been disestablished, because the liability remained with the First Unit. The Supreme Court of Appeal erred in holding...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; orders of the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal set aside; special plea dismissed; matter referred back to the High Court.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.