The Constitutional Court held that section 15(1) of the Protection of Constitutional Democracy against Terrorist and Related Activities Act confers broad extra-territorial jurisdiction on South African courts to try terrorist offences committed abroad, not limited to financing. The Supreme Court of Appeal's narrow interpretation was rejected as textually and purposively incorrect and inconsistent with South Africa's international obligations. Mr Okah's claim for exemption under section 1(4) failed because his actions, involving indiscriminate bombings targeting civilians, violated internation…
Okah v S (SS94/11) [2013] ZAGPJHC 413 (6 December 2013)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
SS94/11
Judge
C.J. Claassen
The High Court granted leave to appeal on jurisdiction under Act 33 of 2004 and on count 13, but refused leave on the duplication argument for counts 3 to 8.
S v Okah (SS94/11) [2013] ZAGPJHC 75 (26 March 2013)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
SS94/11
Judge
C J Claassen
Sentencing judgment in a terrorism prosecution: the court grouped multiple counts, found substantial and compelling circumstances, and imposed an effective 24-year term.
Competition Commission and American Natural Soda Ash CHG Global (Pty) Ltd (disqualification) (49/CR/Apr00) [2006] ZACT 75 (6 September 2006)
Court
Competition Tribunal
Case number
49/CR/Apr00
Judges
N. Manoim, D. Lewis, D.R. Terblanche
The Tribunal held that section 3(1) of the Competition Act does not require 'effect' to mean adverse or harmful effect. The word 'effect' bears its ordinary meaning of result, consequence, or outcome, and the Act's jurisdiction is established by the presence of economic activity within or having an effect within South Africa, regardless of whether the effect is negative. The Tribunal rejected Ansac's arguments based on textual ambiguity, policy, and international law, finding no authority or consistent international rule requiring proof of harm for jurisdiction. The Tribunal further held that…
