South Africa Case Law

Baloyi N.O. and Others v Pawn Stars CC and Another (CCT 15/21)

Baloyi N.O. and Others v Pawn Stars CC and Another (CCT 15/21) [2022] ZACC 10; 2022 (12) BCLR 1431 (CC) (15 March 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 15/21

Judges

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

The Constitutional Court held that its jurisdiction was not engaged because the alleged constitutional issue regarding the applicability of rule 46A to property owned by juristic persons or trusts was immaterial to the decision of the lower court. The High Court had accepted the applicability of rule 46A but dismissed the application on other grounds. The applicants failed to demonstrate any basis for variation or rescission of the consent order under rule 42 or the common law, and did not allege any factors that would have prevented the granting of the consent order had rule 46A been applied…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 46a
• Consent Orders
• Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
• Variation And Rescission Of Orders

Nekokwane v Road Accident Fund (CCT322/17)

Nekokwane v Road Accident Fund (CCT322/17) [2019] ZACC 11; 2019 (6) BCLR 745 (CC) (26 March 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 322/17

Judges

Mogoeng, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Petse, Theron

The Constitutional Court dismissed leave to appeal, holding that the matter was a purely factual dispute and did not raise a justiciable constitutional issue.

• Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Interpretation Of Legislation
• Factual Dispute
• Leave To Appeal
• Constitutional-court-jurisdiction

Cloete and Another v S; Sekgala v Nedbank Limited (CCT324/17; CCT63/18)

Cloete and Another v S; Sekgala v Nedbank Limited (CCT324/17; CCT63/18) [2019] ZACC 6; 2019 (5) BCLR 544 (CC); 2019 (4) SA 268 (CC); 2019 (2) SACR 130 (CC) (19 February 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT324/17; CCT63/18

Judges

Mogoeng, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Petse, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that ordinarily, no appeal lies against a decision of the President of the Supreme Court of Appeal under section 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act. Such decisions are generally factual in nature, concerning whether exceptional circumstances exist, and do not engage the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction unless compelling circumstances are present. The President's decision is not a final decision on the merits and does not dispose of the rights of the parties. Allowing appeals against these decisions would create a dual appeal process, leading to piecemeal adju…

Source excerpt

• Superior Courts Act Section 17 2 F
• Leave To Appeal
• Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
• Finality Of Decisions
• Exceptional Circumstances

Mdodana v Premier of the Eastern Cape and Others (CCT 85/13)

Mdodana v Premier of the Eastern Cape and Others (CCT 85/13) [2014] ZACC 7; 2014 (5) BCLR 533 (CC); 2014 (4) SA 99 (CC) (25 March 2014)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 85/13

Judges

Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Cameron J, Dambuza AJ, Froneman J, Jafta J, Madlanga J, Mhlantla AJ, Nkabinde J, Zondo J

The Constitutional Court dismissed confirmation of invalidity, holding the Pounds Ordinance was not a provincial Act and so outside its confirmation jurisdiction.

• Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
• Arbitrary Deprivation Of Property
• Access To Courts
• Provincial Legislation Status
• Separation Of Powers
• Constitutional-law

Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Chonco and Others (CCT 42/09)

Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development v Chonco and Others (CCT 42/09) [2009] ZACC 25; 2010 (1) SACR 325 (CC) ; 2010 (2) BCLR 140 (CC) ; 2010 (4) SA 82 (CC) (30 September 2009)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 42/09

Judges

Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J

The Constitutional Court held that the power to decide on applications for presidential pardon under section 84(2)(j) of the Constitution vests solely in the President as Head of State. The preliminary process of receiving and examining applications for pardon falls within the President's auxiliary powers and does not constitute a national executive function under section 85(2)(e). The Minister does not incur a constitutional obligation to process such applications unless there is a written transfer of responsibility from the President, as required by the Constitution. The Minister's failure…

Source excerpt

• Presidential Pardon
• Separation Of Powers
• Constitutional Obligation
• Administrative Action
• Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court

African National Congress v Chief Electoral Officer of the Independent Electoral Commission (CCT 45/09)

African National Congress v Chief Electoral Officer of the Independent Electoral Commission (CCT 45/09) [2009] ZACC 13; 2009 (10) BCLR 971 (CC) ; 2010 (5) SA 487 (CC) (3 June 2009)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 45/09

Judges

Moseneke, Cameron, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, O'Regan, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen

The Constitutional Court held that section 96(1) of the Electoral Act does not oust its jurisdiction in constitutional matters, as such an interpretation would be inconsistent with section 167(3)(a) of the Constitution. The Court found that Mr Maluleka was indeed registered on the voters' roll, and the objection by the Chief Electoral Officer was based on a misunderstanding arising from two identity documents with different numbers. The Electoral Court's decision unjustifiably infringed Mr Maluleka's constitutional right to stand for election under section 19(3)(b) of the Constitution. The ur…

Source excerpt

• Electoral Act Interpretation
• Right To Stand For Election
• Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
• Urgent Application
• Voters Roll Qualification

Van Straaten v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT106/08)

Van Straaten v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT106/08) [2009] ZACC 2; 2009 (3) SA 457 (CC) ; 2009 (5) BCLR 480 (CC) (24 February 2009)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 106/08

Judges

Langa, Moseneke, Cameron, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the constitutional validity of parliamentary bills except in the limited circumstances provided for in sections 79 and 121 of the Constitution. The applicant's confusion between a bill and a constitutional amendment was noted, and the application for direct access under section 167(4)(d) was found to be misplaced. The Court emphasized that jurisdiction must be determined at the time proceedings are instituted, and at that time, the bills in question had not yet become law. Accordingly, the application was dismissed f…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
• Direct Access
• Constitutionality Of Bills
• Parliamentary Process
• Rule Of Law

S v van Vuuren (CCT14/05)

S v van Vuuren (CCT14/05) [2005] ZACC 11; 2005 (7) BCLR 639 (CC); 2005 (2) SACR 1 (CC) (6 April 2005)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT14/05

Judges

Chaskalson, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, Moseneke, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal because it raised no constitutional issue, only complaints about factual findings by the magistrate.

• Jurisdiction Of Constitutional Court
• Leave To Appeal
• Maintenance Offences
• Constitutional-court-jurisdiction
• Constitutional-matters
• Leave-to-appeal