South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC & Another (Afriforum, Centre for Applied Legal Studies and Commission for Gender Equality intervening as Amici Curiae) (39/2023) [2024] ZASCA 121; [2024] 4 All SA 66 (SCA); 2024 (6) SA 443 (SCA) (15 August 2024)

South African Human Rights Commission v Agro Data CC & Another (Afriforum, Centre for Applied Legal Studies and Commission for Gender Equality intervening as Amici Curiae) (39/2023) [2024] ZASCA 121; [2024] 4 All SA 66 (SCA); 2024 (6) SA 443 (SCA) (15 August 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the South African Human Rights Commission does not possess the power to issue binding directives under section 184(2)(b) of the Constitution or section 13(3) of the SAHRC Act. The Court found that the language of the Constitution and the SAHRC Act empowers the Commission to investigate, report, and take steps to secure appropriate redress, but does not confer adjudicative or coercive powers. The SAHRC's role is to facilitate, recommend, and assist affected persons, including by approaching courts or tribunals for relief, but its directives are not legally binding on respondents. The powers of the SAHRC are distinguishable from those of the Public...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 121
Parties
Appellant: South African Human Rights Commission; Respondent: Agro Data CC; Respondent: F G Boshoff; Appellant: Afriforum NPC; Appellant: Centre for Applied Legal Studies; Appellant: Commission for Gender Equality
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2024
Case Number
39/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court, Mbombela
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Mocumie, Mbatha, Mothle, Mabindla-Boqwana, Tolmay
Legal Topics
Chapter 9 Institutions, Powers of South African Human Rights Commission, Binding Directives, Appropriate Redress, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Access to Water
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Chapter 9 Institutions Powers of South African Human Rights Commission Binding Directives Appropriate Redress Extension of Security of Tenure Act Access to Water

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Human Rights Commission

Appellant

Agro Data CC

Respondent

F G Boshoff

Respondent

Afriforum NPC

Appellant

Centre for Applied Legal Studies

Appellant

Commission for Gender Equality

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court, Mbombela

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) has the power to issue binding directives under section 184(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13(3) of the SAHRC Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were legally obliged to comply with the SAHRC's directive to restore access to borehole water for farm occupiers.
  3. 3 Whether the powers of the SAHRC are distinguishable from those of the Public Protector.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the South African Human Rights Commission does not possess the power to issue binding directives under section 184(2)(b) of the Constitution or section 13(3) of the SAHRC Act. The Court found that the language of the Constitution and the SAHRC Act empowers the Commission to investigate, report, and take steps to secure appropriate redress, but does not confer adjudicative or coercive powers. The SAHRC's role is to facilitate, recommend, and assist affected persons, including by approaching courts or tribunals for relief, but its directives are not legally binding on respondents. The powers of the SAHRC are distinguishable from those of the Public...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.