S v Mhlungu and Others (CCT25/94) [1995] ZACC 4; 1995 (3) SA 867 ; 1995 (7) BCLR 793 (CC) (8 June 1995)

S v Mhlungu and Others (CCT25/94) [1995] ZACC 4; 1995 (3) SA 867 ; 1995 (7) BCLR 793 (CC) (8 June 1995)

The majority of the Constitutional Court held that section 241(8) does not preclude accused persons in criminal trials pending before the commencement of the Constitution from relying on the rights in Chapter 3. A literal interpretation of section 241(8) would lead to arbitrary and unjust results, denying fundamental rights to individuals based solely on the timing of their proceedings. The Court found that the purpose of section 241(8) is to preserve the authority of pre-Constitution courts to continue adjudicating pending matters, not to exclude the application of constitutional rights. The Constitution must be interpreted purposively to give effect to its objectives of equality,...

Citation
[1995] ZACC 4
Parties
Applicant: Mhlungu and Four Others; Respondent: The State
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 1995
Case Number
CCT25/94
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Referral / Judgment After Referral From Trial Court
Outcome
Application granted. Declaration of invalidity extended to pending proceedings.
Judges
Mahomed, Kentridge, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Chaskalson, Ackermann, Didcott, Krieger, Sachs
Legal Topics
Transitional Provisions, Fair Trial Rights, Retrospective Application, Interpretation of Constitution, Admissibility of Confessions
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Transitional Provisions Fair Trial Rights Retrospective Application Interpretation of Constitution Admissibility of Confessions

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mhlungu and Four Others

Applicant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Referral / Judgment After Referral From Trial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 241(8) of the Constitution preclude accused persons in pending criminal proceedings from relying on the rights in Chapter 3 of the Constitution?
  2. 2 Should the declaration of invalidity of section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act apply to proceedings pending before 27 April 1994?
  3. 3 What is the proper interpretation of section 241(8) in the context of constitutional rights and transitional arrangements?

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the Constitutional Court held that section 241(8) does not preclude accused persons in criminal trials pending before the commencement of the Constitution from relying on the rights in Chapter 3. A literal interpretation of section 241(8) would lead to arbitrary and unjust results, denying fundamental rights to individuals based solely on the timing of their proceedings. The Court found that the purpose of section 241(8) is to preserve the authority of pre-Constitution courts to continue adjudicating pending matters, not to exclude the application of constitutional rights. The Constitution must be interpreted purposively to give effect to its objectives of equality,...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Declaration of invalidity extended to pending proceedings.

Orders

  • It is declared that section 241(8) does not preclude an accused person in a criminal trial from relying on any of the applicable provisions of Chapter 3 of the Constitution in proceedings which were pending before a court of law immediately before the commencement of the Constitution.
  • The declaration of invalidity made by this Court in S v Zuma and Others, 1995(4) BCLR 401 (SA) invalidates any application of section 217(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1977 in any criminal trial, irrespective of whether it commenced before, on or after 27 April 1994, and in which the final verdict was or...