South Africa Case Law

Public Protector of South Africa v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (8500/2022)

Public Protector of South Africa v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (8500/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 222 (3 November 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8500/2022

Judges

L G Nuku, M Francis, J D Lekhuleni

The High Court dismissed leave-to-appeal applications against its section 18 ruling, holding that SCA appeal would be futile and that the Constitutional Court would resolve the dispute.

• Confirmation Of Invalidity
• Interim Orders
• Leave To Appeal
• Presidential Conduct
• Section 18 Superior Courts Act
• Section 172 Constitution

Weare and Another v Ndebele NO and Others (CCT15/08)

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)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 15/08

Judges

Van der Westhuizen, Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob

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…

Source excerpt

• Equality Before The Law
• Provincial Legislation
• Gambling Regulation
• Unfair Discrimination
• Juristic Persons Rights
• Confirmation Of Invalidity

Minister of Home Affairs v Liebenberg (CCT22/01)

Minister of Home Affairs v Liebenberg (CCT22/01) [2001] ZACC 3; 2001 (11) BCLR 1168 ; 2002 (1) SA 33 (CC) (8 October 2001)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT22/01

Judges

Skweyiya AJ, Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Kriegler J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, Du Plessis AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court order did not constitute an order of constitutional invalidity of an Act of Parliament, a provincial Act, or conduct of the President as contemplated by section 172(2) of the Constitution. The regulations in question are subordinate legislation and do not have the status of an Act of Parliament. The order was vague and did not specify any statutory provisions declared invalid. Consequently, the application for confirmation was dismissed, as the Constitutional Court does not have jurisdiction to confirm invalidity of regulations or vague orders…

Source excerpt

• Confirmation Of Invalidity
• Delegated Legislation
• Mandamus
• Constitutional Interpretation

Parbhoo and Others v Getz and Others (CCT16/97)

Parbhoo and Others v Getz and Others (CCT16/97) [1997] ZACC 9; 1997 (10) BCLR 1337; 1997 (4) SA 1095 (18 September 1997)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 16/97

Judges

Ackermann, Chaskalson, Langa, Kriegler, Goldstone, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs

Section 415(3) read with section 415(5) of the Companies Act 1973 is constitutionally invalid to the extent that it allows incriminating answers given under compulsion at creditors' meetings to be used against the person in subsequent criminal proceedings, except for proceedings relating to perjury or failure to answer lawfully. This is inconsistent with the right to a fair trial and the right not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence as guaranteed by section 35(3)(j) of the 1996 Constitution. The High Court's order of invalidity must be confirmed by the Constitutional Court bef…

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Self Incrimination
• Companies Act Section 415
• Confirmation Of Invalidity
• Constitutional Procedure