Weare and Another v Ndebele NO and Others (CCT15/08) [2008] ZACC 20; 2009 (1) SA 600 (CC); 2009 (4) BCLR 370 (CC) (18 November 2008)

Weare and Another v Ndebele NO and Others (CCT15/08) [2008] ZACC 20; 2009 (1) SA 600 (CC); 2009 (4) BCLR 370 (CC) (18 November 2008)

The Constitutional Court held that the invalidation of a provincial ordinance by the High Court must be confirmed by the Constitutional Court, as such ordinances, when amended or incorporated by the provincial legislature, are to be treated as provincial Acts for confirmation purposes. On the merits, the Court found that section 22(5) of the KwaZulu-Natal Regulation of Racing and Betting Ordinance does not violate section 9(1) of the Constitution. The differentiation between natural and juristic persons is rationally linked to the legitimate government purpose of regulating gambling, as it is easier to hold natural persons accountable. The exclusion of juristic persons is not arbitrary or...

Citation
[2008] ZACC 20
Parties
Applicant: Michael Weare; Applicant: Betting World (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mr Joel Sibusiso Ndebele NO; Respondent: KwaZulu-Natal Gambling Board; Respondent: KwaZulu-Natal Bookmakers Control Committee; Respondent: Mr Mandisi Bongani Mabuto Mpahlwa NO; Respondent: National Gambling Board
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2008
Case Number
CCT 15/08
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Appeal / Application for Confirmation of Constitutional Invalidity; Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of constitutional invalidity set aside; no order as to costs.
Judges
Van der Westhuizen, Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Equality Before the Law, Provincial Legislation, Gambling Regulation, Unfair Discrimination, Juristic Persons Rights, Confirmation of Invalidity
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Commercial and Corporate Equality Before the Law Provincial Legislation Gambling Regulation Unfair Discrimination Juristic Persons Rights +1 more

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

Parties

Michael Weare

Applicant

Betting World (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mr Joel Sibusiso Ndebele NO

Respondent

KwaZulu-Natal Gambling Board

Respondent

KwaZulu-Natal Bookmakers Control Committee

Respondent

Mr Mandisi Bongani Mabuto Mpahlwa NO

Respondent

National Gambling Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Appeal / Application for Confirmation of Constitutional Invalidity; Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the invalidation of a provincial ordinance by the High Court must be confirmed by the Constitutional Court.
  2. 2 Whether section 22(5) of the KwaZulu-Natal Regulation of Racing and Betting Ordinance 28 of 1957 violates section 9(1) of the Constitution (equality before the law).
  3. 3 Whether section 22(5) constitutes unfair discrimination contrary to section 9(3) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the invalidation of a provincial ordinance by the High Court must be confirmed by the Constitutional Court, as such ordinances, when amended or incorporated by the provincial legislature, are to be treated as provincial Acts for confirmation purposes. On the merits, the Court found that section 22(5) of the KwaZulu-Natal Regulation of Racing and Betting Ordinance does not violate section 9(1) of the Constitution. The differentiation between natural and juristic persons is rationally linked to the legitimate government purpose of regulating gambling, as it is easier to hold natural persons accountable. The exclusion of juristic persons is not arbitrary or...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of constitutional invalidity set aside; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' application for condonation is granted.
  • The third respondent's application for condonation is refused.