South Africa Case Law

Liebenberg v S (CCT 145/22)

Liebenberg v S (CCT 145/22) [2023] ZACC 33; [2024] 1 BLLR 1 (CC); 2024 (1) BCLR 132 (CC); 2024 (2) SACR 269 (CC) (10 October 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 145/22

Judges

Zondo CJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Makgoka AJ, Potterill AJ, Rogers J, Theron J, Van Zyl AJ

The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction was not engaged because the alleged constitutional violations were not substantiated by the record. The evidence from disciplinary hearings did not play any role in the conviction, which was based on the applicant's formal section 220 admissions. There was no indication of bias or unfairness in the trial or sentencing process. The applicant's arguments regarding the inadmissibility of evidence, bias, and sentence did not raise constitutional matters or points of law of general public importance. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Section 220 Admissions
• Fair Trial Rights
• Disciplinary Hearing Evidence
• Constitutional Jurisdiction

Independent Development Trust (IDT) v Bakhi Design Studio CC and Others

Independent Development Trust (IDT) v Bakhi Design Studio CC and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 363; 033351/2023 (12 May 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

033351/2023

Judge

EC Labuschagne

The High Court stayed pending arbitration because the dispute concerns legality-based review of public procurement decisions, which must be determined by court.

• Principle Of Legality
• Public Procurement
• Stay Of Arbitration
• Self Review By Organs Of State
• Constitutional Jurisdiction
• Irrationality In Public Contracts

(3289/18)

(3289/18) [2020] ZAMPMBHC 46; [2020] ZAMPMBHC 5 (6 March 2020)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

2653/2017

Judge

Greyling-Coetzer

The court found that the replication by the Mpumalanga Provincial Government raises constitutional issues of public importance, specifically regarding the application of estoppel in public-private partnership agreements governed by the PFMA and Treasury Regulations. The High Court, not a private arbitrator, has jurisdiction to decide such constitutional matters. The privatisation of constitutional disputes is contrary to the constitutional system, and the arbitrator lacks the power to grant just and equitable remedies under Section 172 of the Constitution. Furthermore, relevant parties such a…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Act Section 3
• Public Private Partnership
• Estoppel
• Pfma Compliance
• Constitutional Jurisdiction
• Joinder Of Parties

Rural Maintenance (Pty) Limited and Another v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality (CCT214/15)

Rural Maintenance (Pty) Limited and Another v Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality (CCT214/15) [2016] ZACC 37; 2017 (1) BCLR 64 (CC); (2017) 38 ILJ 295 (CC); [2017] 3 BLLR 258 (CC) (1 November 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT214/15

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Bosielo, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Zondo

The majority of the Constitutional Court held that leave to appeal should be refused. The Labour Appeal Court applied the correct test for a transfer of business as a going concern under section 197 of the LRA, requiring an overall assessment of all relevant factors, not the transfer of every asset. The factual record showed that Rural Maintenance did not transfer essential assets necessary for the Municipality to continue the business seamlessly, such as computers, vehicles, and debtor's books. The absence of these assets meant the Municipality could not carry on the same business, and thus…

Source excerpt

• Transfer Of Business As Going Concern
• Section 197 Lra
• Municipal Service Provision
• Employment Contracts Transfer
• Constitutional Jurisdiction
• Contract Validity

Coetzee v National Commissioner of Police and Another (CCT 124/12)

Coetzee v National Commissioner of Police and Another (CCT 124/12) [2013] ZACC 29; 2013 (11) BCLR 1227 (CC) (29 August 2013)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 124/12

Judges

Nkabinde, Moseneke, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Skweyiya, Zondo

The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal against a costs order arising from a bail application, holding that the matter was not a constitutional issue.

• Costs Awards
• Leave To Appeal
• Unlawful Arrest
• Constitutional Jurisdiction
• Bail Application
• Leave-to-appeal

Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Chonco and Others (CCT42/09)

Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Chonco and Others (CCT42/09) [2010] ZACC 9; 2010 (7) BCLR 629 (CC) (8 April 2010)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT42/09

Judges

Ngcobo, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that it has the power and duty to interpret and, if necessary, vary its previous orders, regardless of changes in its composition. The omission of explicit reference to the respondents' costs in the High Court in the original order created an ambiguity, which the Court is empowered to remedy under Rule 42 of the Uniform Rules. The Court found that the original judgment's reasoning—that the respondents should not be out of pocket for seeking legal recourse—necessarily covered costs in all three courts. The order is therefore varied to make explicit that the Minist…

Source excerpt

• Variation Of Court Orders
• Costs Award
• Court Composition
• Constitutional Jurisdiction

Manong Associates (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Department of Road and Transport and Others (2/2008)

Manong Associates (Pty) Ltd v Eastern Cape Department of Road and Transport and Others (2/2008) [2008] ZAECHC 29; 2008 (6) SA 434 (EqC) (24 April 2008)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

2/2008

Judge

J.C. Froneman

The High Court, when sitting as an equality court, retains its constitutional and inherent review jurisdiction and is not a separate tribunal. The procurement policy challenged by the applicant was found to be rationally connected to legitimate objectives, namely ensuring safety, durability, and effective use of public funds in road construction. The requirements for experience and technical expertise did not amount to indirect unfair discrimination, as previously disadvantaged groups had opportunities to gain such experience, and the applicant itself generally met the profile. Allegations of…

Source excerpt

• Public Procurement
• Indirect Discrimination
• Judicial Review
• Equality Act
• Constitutional Jurisdiction
• Tender Award Challenge

S v Western Areas Ltd and Others (CCT 4/04)

S v Western Areas Ltd and Others (CCT 4/04) [2004] ZACC 2; 2004 (8) BCLR 819 (CC); 2004 (1) SACR 567 (CC) (5 April 2004)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 4/04

Judges

Chaskalson, Madala, Mokgoro, Moseneke, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court dismissed a conditional leave-to-appeal application, holding that its rules already allowed direct leave to appeal from an SCA decision.

• Leave To Appeal
• Criminal Indictment
• Constitutional Jurisdiction
• Leave-to-appeal
• Criminal-indictment
• Constitutional-jurisdiction

Phoebus Apollo Aviation CC v Minister of Safety and Security (CCT19/02)

Phoebus Apollo Aviation CC v Minister of Safety and Security (CCT19/02) [2002] ZACC 26; 2003 (1) BCLR 14 ; 2003 (2) SA 34 (CC) (28 November 2002)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 19/02

Judges

Kriegler, Chaskalson, Langa, Goldstone, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that the Minister of Safety and Security is not vicariously liable for the theft committed by the three police officers, as they were not acting in the course and scope of their employment but were pursuing their own interests. The appellant's constitutional right to property under section 25 was not engaged, as the deprivation was caused by private robbers and not by state action. The duties imposed on the police by the Constitution did not extend liability to the respondent in these circumstances. The common law test for vicarious liability is consistent with t…

Source excerpt

• Vicarious Liability
• Section 25 Property Rights
• Development Of Common Law
• Police Duties
• Wrongfulness
• Constitutional Jurisdiction

President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others - Judgment on recusal application (CCT16/98)

President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v South African Rugby Football Union and Others - Judgment on recusal application (CCT16/98) [1999] ZACC 9; 1999 (4) SA 147; 1999 (7) BCLR 725 (4 June 1999)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT16/98

Judges

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

The Constitutional Court dismissed Dr Louis Luyt’s recusal application, holding that no objectively reasonable apprehension of bias was shown against any judge.

• Judicial Recusal
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Bias
• Constitutional Jurisdiction
• Appointment Of Judges
• Fair Trial Rights
• Judicial-recusal