South Africa Case Law

Mohlaba and Others v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others (CCT 07/24)

Mohlaba and Others v Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and Others (CCT 07/24) [2024] ZACC 32; 2025 (4) BCLR 442 (CC) (20 December 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 07/24

Judges

Madlanga ADCJ, Kollapen J, Majiedt J, Mathopo J, Rogers J, Seegobin AJ, Theron J, Tolmay AJ, Tshiqi J

Section 25 of the Limpopo Traditional Leadership and Institutions Act 6 of 2005 is unconstitutional because it unlawfully delegates the power to impose compulsory levies (taxes) to traditional councils and the Premier, contrary to the Constitution which reserves taxing powers for elected legislative bodies and prohibits such delegation. The levies imposed under section 25 are compulsory, uniformly applied, paid into a general fund, and used for general purposes, meeting all criteria for a tax. Traditional leaders, as unelected bodies, have no constitutional or customary law authority to impos…

Source excerpt

• Taxing Power
• Customary Law
• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• Limpopo Traditional Leadership And Institutions Act
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Costs Against State

Casino Association of South Africa and Others v Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development Environment Conservation and Tourism and Others (CCT 322/22)

Casino Association of South Africa and Others v Member of the Executive Council for Economic Development Environment Conservation and Tourism and Others (CCT 322/22) [2023] ZACC 39; 2024 (5) BCLR 611 (CC) (29 November 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 322/22

Judges

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

The Constitutional Court confirmed that sections 84(1)(e), 87(1)(a), and 87(3) of the North West Gambling Act unlawfully delegated the power to impose provincial taxes to the Executive, contrary to section 228(1) of the Constitution. Applying the dominant purpose test, the Court found that the impugned amendment to regulation 73(1) was not a regulatory charge but a tax, as its primary purpose was to raise general revenue for the Province, not to regulate gambling conduct. There was no sufficient nexus between the levies and the regulatory scheme. The applicants did not delay in bringing their…

Source excerpt

• Provincial Taxation
• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• Money Bill Procedure
• Condictio Indebiti
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Separation Of Powers

Ayres and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (CCT 47/21)

Ayres and Another v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Another (CCT 47/21) [2022] ZACC 12; 2022 (5) BCLR 523 (CC); 2022 (2) SACR 123 (CC) (25 March 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 47/21

Judges

Zondo, Madlanga, Madondo, Mhlantla, Majiedt, Pillay, Rogers, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court was bound by its prior decision in Smit, which declared section 63 of the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act unconstitutional and invalid to the extent that it delegated plenary legislative power to the Minister. The High Court's failure to apply the Smit precedent was a breach of the doctrine of precedent and the rule of law. However, since the Constitutional Court had already declared the provision invalid, the High Court could not grant the relief sought by the applicants, and the application was correctly dismissed on the merits. The costs ord…

Source excerpt

• Doctrine Of Precedent
• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• Rule Of Law
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Costs Order

Ambassador Duty Free (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Finance and Others (28368/2021; 32175/2021)

Ambassador Duty Free (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Finance and Others (28368/2021; 32175/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 7 (17 January 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28368/2021; 32175/2021

Judge

D S Fourie

The High Court is bound by the Constitutional Court's decision in Prince, which holds that it is neither necessary nor competent for a High Court to suspend a declaration of invalidity relating to an Act of Parliament, as such orders require confirmation by the Constitutional Court and have no force unless confirmed. The Court found that the Schedules to the Customs Act and VAT Act, even as amended, remain part of the Act of Parliament and thus any declaration of invalidity regarding these Schedules also requires confirmation. The Court declined to grant immediate prospective effect to the de…

Source excerpt

• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• Declaration Of Invalidity
• Confirmation Proceedings
• Customs And Excise
• Value Added Tax
• Prospective And Suspended Orders

South African Fruit and Vegetable Canners Association and Another v Impumelelo Agri Business Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Others (82759/2018)

South African Fruit and Vegetable Canners Association and Another v Impumelelo Agri Business Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Others (82759/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 227; [2021] 3 All SA 242 (GP) (14 May 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

82759/2018

Judge

D S Molefe

The court found that the first respondent's process for determining, publishing, and imposing inspection fees did not meet the minimum requirements for fair administrative action under PAJA. The applicants were not provided with sufficient information to make meaningful representations, and the process was not transparent or rationally connected to the information before the decision-maker. The court held that the applicants were not required to exhaust internal remedies, as no effective remedy was available at the time. The constitutional challenges to the assignee's power to determine fees…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Inspection Fees
• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• Constitutional Review
• Procedural Fairness

Smit v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (14655/2015)

Smit v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (14655/2015) [2019] ZAWCHC 102; 2019 (2) SACR 516 (WCC) ; [2019] 4 All SA 542 (WCC) (16 August 2019)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14655/2015

Judge

Francis, AJ

Section 63 of the Drugs and Drugs Trafficking Act 140 of 1992 constitutes an impermissible delegation of plenary legislative power to the executive, violating the separation of powers and the constitutional requirement for public participation in law-making. All amendments to the Schedules made by the Minister under section 63 are invalid, but the original Schedule promulgated by Parliament remains valid. The applicant has sufficient standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 63 and the Schedules, given the public interest and the direct impact on his rights. Section 5(1)(a) of th…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Powers
• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• Extradition
• Double Criminality
• Invalidity Of Subordinate Legislation
• Right To Freedom And Security

South African Reserve Bank and Another v Shuttleworth and Another (CCT194/14, CCT199/14)

South African Reserve Bank and Another v Shuttleworth and Another (CCT194/14, CCT199/14) [2015] ZACC 17; 2015 (5) SA 146 (CC); 2015 (8) BCLR 959 (CC); 78 SATC 23 (18 June 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT194/14, CCT199/14

Judges

Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jappie AJ, Khampepe J, Molemela AJ, Nkabinde J, Theron AJ, Tshiqi AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the exit charge imposed under regulation 10(1)(c) of the Exchange Control Regulations was a regulatory charge, not a tax. Its dominant purpose was to regulate and discourage the export of capital, not to raise revenue for the State. The charge was imposed on a discrete group—those externalising capital above R750,000—and was not collected through the ordinary tax machinery. The fact that it incidentally raised revenue did not alter its regulatory character. Therefore, the charge did not require compliance with the money Bill procedure under sections 75 and 7…

Source excerpt

• Money Bill Procedure
• Exchange Control Regulations
• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• Dominant Purpose Test
• Judicial Review Of Executive Action
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

Ynuico Ltd v Minister of Trade and Industry and Others (CCT47/95)

Ynuico Ltd v Minister of Trade and Industry and Others (CCT47/95) [1996] ZACC 12; 1996 (6) BCLR 798; 1996 (3) SA 989 (21 May 1996)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT47/95

Judges

Didcott, Chaskalson, Mahomed, Ackermann, Kentridge, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs

Section 2(1)(b) of the Import and Export Control Act and the relevant notice were enacted and exercised prior to the commencement of the interim Constitution. Section 37 of the interim Constitution applies only prospectively to the new Parliament and does not affect laws enacted by the previous legislature. Section 229 preserves pre-existing laws unless they conflict with the Constitution. No inconsistency exists between section 2(1)(b) and section 37, as the latter does not operate retrospectively. The supremacy clause in section 4(1) only nullifies laws inconsistent with the Constitution, a…

Source excerpt

• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• Statutory Interpretation
• Constitutional Supremacy
• Retrospective Application
• Import Control

Kauluma and Others v Cabinet for Interim Government of South Africa and Others (137/88)

Kauluma and Others v Cabinet for Interim Government of South Africa and Others (137/88) [1988] ZASCA 138 (8 November 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

137/88

Judges

Joubert, Hefer, Vivier, Eksteen, Viljoen

The Court held that the Administrator-General was vested with full or plenary legislative powers by virtue of Proclamation 181 of 1977, as authorised by section 38 of the South West Africa Constitution Act. The inclusion of exemptions in Orders AG 26 of 1978 and AG 50 of 1979 did not render them ultra vires, as such exemptions were intended to mitigate the harshness of absolute prohibitions and did not exceed the scope of the enabling provisions. The Orders were not invalid on grounds of unreasonableness or vagueness, as legislation enacted under plenary powers cannot be impugned on such grou…

Source excerpt

• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• Ultra Vires
• Security Measures
• Curfew Orders

Binga v Cabinet for South West Africa and Others (250/1984)

Binga v Cabinet for South West Africa and Others (250/1984) [1988] ZASCA 22 (24 March 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

250/1984

Judges

Rabie, Corbett, Van Heerden, Hefer, Grosskopf

The court held that the State President could legislate for South West Africa under section 38(1), and dismissed the challenge to a non-White call-up for national service.

• Statutory Interpretation
• Mandate Termination
• Military Service Liability
• Delegation Of Legislative Power
• International Obligations
• Statutory-interpretation