S v Manyonyo (CCT36/99) [1999] ZACC 14; 1999 (12) BCLR 1438 (4 November 1999)

S v Manyonyo (CCT36/99) [1999] ZACC 14; 1999 (12) BCLR 1438 (4 November 1999)

Section 21(1)(c) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 creates a presumption that, upon proof that the accused conveyed any drug, it shall be presumed that the accused dealt in such drug unless the contrary is proved. This provision impermissibly shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, undermining the constitutional presumption of innocence as protected by section 25(3)(c) of the interim Constitution. The Constitutional Court had previously declared similar presumptions unconstitutional. The Court held that the declaration of invalidity made by the Northern Cape Division in S v Mjezu was clearly correct, but for clarity and certainty, extended the declaration of...

Citation
[1999] ZACC 14
Parties
Applicant: The State; Respondent: Manyonyo
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 1999
Case Number
CCT36/99
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Review / Referral From Supreme Court (eastern Cape Division) for Constitutional Determination
Outcome
Section 21(1)(c) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is declared inconsistent with the interim Constitution and invalid. The declaration applies nationally, subject to limitations on retrospective effect. The matter is referred back to the Eastern Cape High Court.
Judges
Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O’ Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, Cameron AJ
Legal Topics
Presumption of Innocence, Constitutional Invalidity, Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, Retrospective Effect of Orders
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Presumption of Innocence Constitutional Invalidity Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act Retrospective Effect of Orders

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The State

Applicant

Manyonyo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Review / Referral From Supreme Court (eastern Cape Division) for Constitutional Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 21(1)(c) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is inconsistent with the interim Constitution and therefore invalid.
  2. 2 Whether section 20 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is unconstitutional.
  3. 3 Whether the declaration of invalidity in S v Mjezu applies nationally or only in the Northern Cape Division.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 21(1)(c) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 creates a presumption that, upon proof that the accused conveyed any drug, it shall be presumed that the accused dealt in such drug unless the contrary is proved. This provision impermissibly shifts the burden of proof onto the accused, undermining the constitutional presumption of innocence as protected by section 25(3)(c) of the interim Constitution. The Constitutional Court had previously declared similar presumptions unconstitutional. The Court held that the declaration of invalidity made by the Northern Cape Division in S v Mjezu was clearly correct, but for clarity and certainty, extended the declaration of...

Court Disposition

Section 21(1)(c) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is declared inconsistent with the interim Constitution and invalid. The declaration applies nationally, subject to limitations on retrospective effect. The matter is referred back to the Eastern Cape High Court.

Orders

  • Section 21(1)(c) of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 is declared to be inconsistent with the interim Constitution and of no force and effect.
  • Subject to paragraph 3, the declaration of invalidity shall invalidate any application of section 21(1)(c) in any criminal trial where the verdict was entered after the interim Constitution came into force and where, as at the date of this judgment, either an appeal or review is pending or the time for noting an...