Rudolph and Another v Commissioner for Inland Revenue and Others (CCT13/96) [1996] ZACC 13; 1996 (7) BCLR 889; 1996 (4) SA 552 (11 June 1996)

Rudolph and Another v Commissioner for Inland Revenue and Others (CCT13/96) [1996] ZACC 13; 1996 (7) BCLR 889; 1996 (4) SA 552 (11 June 1996)

The Constitutional Court held that section 74(3) of the Income Tax Act was not subject to constitutional scrutiny in this case because all relevant acts—issuing authorizations, searching, and seizing documents—were completed before the interim Constitution came into operation. The concept of 'seizure' was interpreted in its ordinary sense, meaning effective deprivation of possession and control, which occurred prior to the Constitution's commencement. Consequently, the Constitution did not apply, and the Appellate Division retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the common law grounds of invalidity. The Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction over these grounds in this matter.

Citation
[1996] ZACC 13
Parties
Appellant: G Rudolph; Appellant: Glynn Rudolph & Co (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Commissioner for Inland Revenue; Respondent: JFC Heydenrych NO; Respondent: RJ Beukes NO; Respondent: JJ Holtzhausen NO; Respondent: K Steyn NO; Respondent: P Du Plessis NO; Respondent: TJ Frates NO; Respondent: MMJ Van Wyk NO
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 1996
Case Number
CCT13/96
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Referral / Referral From Appellate Division to Constitutional Court for Determination of Constitutional and Jurisdictional Issues
Outcome
The Constitutional Court answered the referred questions, holding that the Constitution does not apply to the acts in question, the Appellate Division is competent to adjudicate the common law grounds of invalidity, and the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction over those grounds in this case.
Judges
Ackermann, Chaskalson, Mahomed, Didcott, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs
Legal Topics
Search and Seizure, Jurisdiction of Courts, Retrospective Application of Constitution, Income Tax Act Section 74 3
Constitutional Law Tax Law Civil Procedure Search and Seizure Jurisdiction of Courts Retrospective Application of Constitution Income Tax Act Section 74 3

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G Rudolph

Appellant

Glynn Rudolph & Co (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Commissioner for Inland Revenue

Respondent

JFC Heydenrych NO

Respondent

RJ Beukes NO

Respondent

JJ Holtzhausen NO

Respondent

K Steyn NO

Respondent

P Du Plessis NO

Respondent

TJ Frates NO

Respondent

MMJ Van Wyk NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Referral / Referral From Appellate Division to Constitutional Court for Determination of Constitutional and Jurisdictional Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 74(3) of the Income Tax Act 58 of 1962 is contrary to Chapter 3 of the interim Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the Appellate Division is competent to adjudicate the common law grounds of invalidity or if these fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.
  3. 3 What directions should be given for disposal of the appeal if the Appellate Division is competent to adjudicate the common law grounds of invalidity.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that section 74(3) of the Income Tax Act was not subject to constitutional scrutiny in this case because all relevant acts—issuing authorizations, searching, and seizing documents—were completed before the interim Constitution came into operation. The concept of 'seizure' was interpreted in its ordinary sense, meaning effective deprivation of possession and control, which occurred prior to the Constitution's commencement. Consequently, the Constitution did not apply, and the Appellate Division retained jurisdiction to adjudicate the common law grounds of invalidity. The Constitutional Court had no jurisdiction over these grounds in this matter.

Court Disposition

The Constitutional Court answered the referred questions, holding that the Constitution does not apply to the acts in question, the Appellate Division is competent to adjudicate the common law grounds of invalidity, and the Constitutional Court has no jurisdiction over those grounds in this case.

Orders

  • The acts of issuing authorizations and searching and seizing documents were completed before the interim Constitution commenced; the Constitution does not apply to this matter.
  • The Appellate Division is competent to adjudicate and determine on appeal the common law grounds of invalidity.