South Africa Case Law

KOS and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (2298/2017)

KOS and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (2298/2017) [2017] ZAWCHC 90; [2017] 4 All SA 468 (WCC); 2017 (6) SA 588 (WCC) (6 September 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2298/2017

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court held that the Department of Home Affairs' refusal to process applications for alteration of sex description under the Alteration Act for persons married under the Marriage Act was unlawful and unconstitutional. The Alteration Act does not require divorce or deregistration of marriages as a precondition for relief, and the Department's conduct infringed the applicants' rights to administrative justice, equality, and dignity. The legislative framework does not contain a lacuna preventing relief; the Department's reliance on public or religious sensitivities and alleged data system lim…

Source excerpt

• Alteration Of Sex Description Act
• Marriage Act
• Civil Union Act
• Administrative Justice
• Equality And Non Discrimination
• Identity Documents

Minister of Basic Education v Basic Education for All (20793/2014)

Minister of Basic Education v Basic Education for All (20793/2014) [2015] ZASCA 198; [2016] 1 All SA 369 (SCA); 2016 (4) SA 63 (SCA) (2 December 2015)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

20793/2014

Judges

Navsa, Lewis, Cachalia, Petse, Dambuza

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the right to basic education under section 29(1)(a) of the Constitution is immediately realisable and includes the entitlement of every learner to receive a prescribed textbook for each subject before the commencement of the academic year. The Department of Basic Education had adopted a clear national policy to this effect and had implemented it in other provinces. The failure to deliver textbooks to all learners in Limpopo, particularly those from poor and rural communities, constituted a violation of their rights to basic education, equality, and dignit…

Source excerpt

• Right To Basic Education
• Equality And Non Discrimination
• State Obligations
• Separation Of Powers
• Public Administration
• School Textbook Delivery

De Vos N.O and Others v Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development and Others (CCT 150/14)

De Vos N.O and Others v Minister of Justice And Constitutional Development and Others (CCT 150/14) [2015] ZACC 21; 2015 (2) SACR 217 (CC); 2015 (9) BCLR 1026 (CC) (26 June 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 150/14

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Froneman, Khampepe, Leeuw, Madlanga, Nkabinde, Tshiqi, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that section 77(6)(a)(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Act unjustifiably mandated detention of accused persons with mental disability.

• Deprivation Of Liberty
• Mental Health And Criminal Responsibility
• Children's Rights
• Equality And Non Discrimination
• Remedies For Unconstitutional Legislation
• Freedom-and-security-of-the-person

Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others (06/13865)

Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others (06/13865) [2008] ZAGPHC 491; [2008] 4 All SA 471 (W) (30 April 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

06/13865

Judge

M P Tsoka

The court considered whether Johannesburg’s free-water policy and prepayment meters in Phiri complied with the Constitution, PAJA, and water-services law.

• Right Of Access To Water
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Equality And Non Discrimination
• Municipal Services
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Socio Economic Rights

S v Mazibuko (A1246/2006)

S v Mazibuko (A1246/2006) [2008] ZAGPHC 106 (18 April 2008)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

A1246/2006

Judge

M P Tsoka

The court found that the respondents' decision to limit free basic water supply to 25 litres per person per day or 6 kilolitres per household per month was unreasonable and failed to meet the constitutional obligation to progressively realize the right to sufficient water. The forced installation of prepayment meters in Phiri Township, without genuine choice or proper consultation, was unlawful, unconstitutional, and procedurally unfair. The differentiation in water supply policies between Phiri and other areas amounted to unfair discrimination on the basis of race and geography, violating th…

Source excerpt

• Right To Water
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Equality And Non Discrimination
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Services
• Procedural Fairness

Liberal Party v The Electoral Commission and Others (CCT 10/04)

Liberal Party v The Electoral Commission and Others (CCT 10/04) [2004] ZACC 1; 2004 (8) BCLR 810 (CC) (5 April 2004)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 10/04

Judges

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

The Constitutional Court dismissed the Liberal Party’s urgent bid to contest the 2004 elections after its candidates’ list was filed 21 minutes late.

• Electoral Act Compliance
• Direct Access
• Party Registration
• Equality And Non Discrimination
• Electoral-act-compliance
• Election-timetable