Janse van Rensburg and Another v Minister of Trade and Industry and Another (CCT13/99) [2000] ZACC 18; 2001 (1) SA 29 ; 2000 (11) BCLR 1235 (CC) (29 September 2000)

Janse van Rensburg and Another v Minister of Trade and Industry and Another (CCT13/99) [2000] ZACC 18; 2001 (1) SA 29 ; 2000 (11) BCLR 1235 (CC) (29 September 2000)

Section 7(3) of the Act, as originally enacted, was rendered moot by subsequent legislative amendment requiring judicial authorisation for searches and seizures. The Court declined to confirm the High Court's declaration of invalidity for section 7(3) as no live controversy remained. Section 8(5)(a) of the Act, however, remains unamended and empowers the Minister to stay business practices and attach assets without procedural fairness, adequate guidance, or prior warning. The section allows for drastic action based on untested allegations, affecting not only those under investigation but also third parties, and may persist for up to six months or indefinitely. The absence of procedural...

Citation
[2000] ZACC 18
Parties
Applicant: Gerhardus Francois Janse van Rensburg NO; Applicant: Omega Trust Power Marketing CC; Respondent: Minister of Trade and Industry NO; Respondent: Louise Arlene Tager NO
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2000
Case Number
CCT13/99
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Confirmation / Confirmation of High Court Declaration of Constitutional Invalidity
Outcome
Section 7(3) declaration of invalidity not confirmed; section 8(5)(a) declaration of invalidity confirmed and suspended for 12 months subject to interim conditions.
Judges
Goldstone, Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Kriegler, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob, Madlanga
Legal Topics
Just Administrative Action, Limitation of Rights, Unfair Business Practices, Ministerial Discretion, Interim Interdicts, Property Attachment
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Just Administrative Action Limitation of Rights Unfair Business Practices Ministerial Discretion Interim Interdicts +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerhardus Francois Janse van Rensburg NO

Applicant

Omega Trust Power Marketing CC

Applicant

Minister of Trade and Industry NO

Respondent

Louise Arlene Tager NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Confirmation / Confirmation of High Court Declaration of Constitutional Invalidity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 7(3) of the Consumer Affairs (Unfair Business Practices) Act 71 of 1988 is constitutionally invalid for authorising search and seizure without judicial authorisation.
  2. 2 Whether section 8(5)(a) of the Act is constitutionally invalid for permitting the Minister to stay business practices and attach assets without procedural fairness or adequate guidance.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of procedural safeguards and guidance in section 8(5)(a) violates section 33 of the Constitution (just administrative action).

Ratio Decidendi

Section 7(3) of the Act, as originally enacted, was rendered moot by subsequent legislative amendment requiring judicial authorisation for searches and seizures. The Court declined to confirm the High Court's declaration of invalidity for section 7(3) as no live controversy remained. Section 8(5)(a) of the Act, however, remains unamended and empowers the Minister to stay business practices and attach assets without procedural fairness, adequate guidance, or prior warning. The section allows for drastic action based on untested allegations, affecting not only those under investigation but also third parties, and may persist for up to six months or indefinitely. The absence of procedural...

Court Disposition

Section 7(3) declaration of invalidity not confirmed; section 8(5)(a) declaration of invalidity confirmed and suspended for 12 months subject to interim conditions.

Orders

  • No order is made regarding the confirmation proceedings in respect of section 7(3) of the Consumer Affairs (Unfair Business Practices) Act 71 of 1988.
  • The order of constitutional invalidity in respect of section 8(5)(a) of the Act is confirmed.