More v Minister of Co-Operation & Development (179/84) [1985] ZASCA 89; [1986] 3 All SA 286 (AD); 1986 (1) SA 102 (A) (19 September 1985)

More v Minister of Co-Operation & Development (179/84) [1985] ZASCA 89; [1986] 3 All SA 286 (AD); 1986 (1) SA 102 (A) (19 September 1985)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the first proviso to section 5(1)(b) of the Black Administration Act requires a resolution by both Houses of Parliament specifically approving the withdrawal ordered by the State President, including the destination to which the tribe is to be moved. The 1975 Parliamentary resolution did not meet this requirement, as it was adopted years before the withdrawal order and did not specify the area to which the tribe was to be relocated. The court found that the purpose of the proviso is to provide a meaningful safeguard for tribes subject to withdrawal orders, requiring Parliament to review the terms of the order and the reasons for refusal before...

Citation
[1985] ZASCA 89
Parties
Appellant: Shadrack More; Respondent: Minister of Co-Operation & Development; Respondent: J de Villiers
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 1985
Case Number
179/84
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Urgent Application; Leave to Appeal Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of court a quo set aside; costs awarded to appellant.
Judges
Rabie, Kotzé, Trengove, Botha, Grosskopf
Legal Topics
Black Administration Act, Forced Removal, Parliamentary Approval, Statutory Interpretation, Interdict, Urgent Application
Administrative Law Land and Property Black Administration Act Forced Removal Parliamentary Approval Statutory Interpretation Interdict Urgent Application

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shadrack More

Appellant

Minister of Co-Operation & Development

Respondent

J de Villiers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Urgent Application; Leave to Appeal Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the withdrawal order issued under section 5(1)(b) of the Black Administration Act was valid and enforceable against the Bakwena Ba Magopa tribe.
  2. 2 Whether the 1975 Parliamentary resolution constituted compliance with the first proviso to section 5(1)(b) of the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant and tribe were entitled to interim relief restraining forcible eviction absent proper Parliamentary approval.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the first proviso to section 5(1)(b) of the Black Administration Act requires a resolution by both Houses of Parliament specifically approving the withdrawal ordered by the State President, including the destination to which the tribe is to be moved. The 1975 Parliamentary resolution did not meet this requirement, as it was adopted years before the withdrawal order and did not specify the area to which the tribe was to be relocated. The court found that the purpose of the proviso is to provide a meaningful safeguard for tribes subject to withdrawal orders, requiring Parliament to review the terms of the order and the reasons for refusal before...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of court a quo set aside; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs of the application to this court for leave to appeal, but excluding wasted costs occasioned by duplication of pages in the record.
  • The order of the court a quo as to costs is set aside, and the respondents are ordered to pay the appellant's costs in the proceedings in the court a quo, including the costs of the application to that court for leave to appeal.