King and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control and Another (561/2004) [2005] ZASCA 96; [2006] 1 All SA 458 (SCA); 2006 (4) BCLR 462 (SCA); 2006 (1) SA 474 (SCA) (29 September 2005)

King and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control and Another (561/2004) [2005] ZASCA 96; [2006] 1 All SA 458 (SCA); 2006 (4) BCLR 462 (SCA); 2006 (1) SA 474 (SCA) (29 September 2005)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that it does not have jurisdiction to declare a statute invalid on the grounds that Parliament failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in the legislative process. Such jurisdiction is reserved exclusively for the Constitutional Court under section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution. The court distinguished between statutory invalidity arising from procedural prerequisites and invalidity arising from breach of constitutional obligations, finding that only the latter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. The appellants' challenge, based on an alleged breach of section 59, was therefore not...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 96
Parties
Appellant: Mary Patricia King & 92 Others; Appellant: Colleen Judith Van Straaten & 6 Others; Appellant: Namcoast (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: C M Tapson & 2 Others; Respondent: Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control; Respondent: Minister of Justice
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2005
Case Number
561/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Grahamstown High Court
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Harms, Cameron, Mthiyane, Nugent, Jafta
Legal Topics
Public Involvement in Legislation, Constitutional Obligation, Statutory Invalidity, Jurisdiction of Courts
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Public Involvement in Legislation Constitutional Obligation Statutory Invalidity Jurisdiction of Courts

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mary Patricia King & 92 Others

Appellant

Colleen Judith Van Straaten & 6 Others

Appellant

Namcoast (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

C M Tapson & 2 Others

Appellant

Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control

Respondent

Minister of Justice

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Grahamstown High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal and High Courts have jurisdiction to declare a statute invalid for breach of Parliament's constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in the legislative process.
  2. 2 Whether the Attorneys Act amendment was invalid due to insufficient public involvement as required by section 59 of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the alleged breach of constitutional obligation by Parliament renders the statute invalid.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that it does not have jurisdiction to declare a statute invalid on the grounds that Parliament failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in the legislative process. Such jurisdiction is reserved exclusively for the Constitutional Court under section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution. The court distinguished between statutory invalidity arising from procedural prerequisites and invalidity arising from breach of constitutional obligations, finding that only the latter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. The appellants' challenge, based on an alleged breach of section 59, was therefore not...

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll.
  • The appellants are ordered to pay the costs of the respondents, including the costs of two counsel.