South Africa Case Law

Solidarity Trade Union and Others v Minister of Health and Others (61844/2021)

Solidarity Trade Union and Others v Minister of Health and Others (61844/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 677; [2024] 4 All SA 264 (GP); 2024 (11) BCLR 1451 (GP); 2024 (6) SA 639 (GP) (24 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

61844/2021

Judge

Millar

The court found that sections 36 to 40 of the National Health Act 61 of 2003 (Certificate of Need scheme) are unconstitutional. The scheme infringes several constitutional rights, including dignity, freedom of movement and residence, choice of trade, property rights, and access to healthcare. It imposes impermissible barriers to entry and continued operation for private healthcare providers and establishments, with retrospective effect and no guarantee of renewal. The scheme enables arbitrary deprivation and expropriation of property without compensation or fair process, and compels resource…

Source excerpt

• Certificate Of Need
• National Health Act
• Limitation Of Rights
• Expropriation
• Access To Healthcare
• Property Deprivation

Democratic Alliance v Independent Communications Authority of South Africa and Another (2024/029892)

Democratic Alliance v Independent Communications Authority of South Africa and Another (2024/029892) [2024] ZAGPJHC 319 (30 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/029892

Judge

L.J. du Bruyn

The court found that the amended regulation 4(2) imposed a severe limitation on the applicant's rights to freedom of expression and political participation by preventing the submission of responsive political election broadcasts after a fixed cut-off date. ICASA failed to provide sufficient evidence or justification for this limitation under section 36 of the Constitution, relying instead on unsubstantiated claims of administrative and financial convenience. The court held that such convenience cannot outweigh the fundamental rights at stake, especially in the context of elections where robus…

Source excerpt

• Political Rights
• Election Broadcast Regulation
• Limitation Of Rights
• Section 36 Analysis
• Freedom Of Expression
• Administrative Convenience

One Movement South Africa NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 158/23)

One Movement South Africa NPC v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 158/23) [2023] ZACC 42; 2024 (3) BCLR 364 (CC); 2024 (2) SA 148 (CC) (4 December 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 158/23

Judges

Zondo, Maya, Kollapen, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Rogers, Schippers, Theron, Van Zyl

The Constitutional Court struck down the independent-candidate signature threshold in section 31B(3), suspended invalidity for 24 months, and dismissed the recalculation challenge.

• Electoral Act
• Political Rights
• Limitation Of Rights
• Proportional Representation
• Freedom Of Association
• Constitutional Invalidity

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and others v Ntuli (539/2020)

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and others v Ntuli (539/2020) [2023] ZASCA 146; [2024] 1 All SA 333 (SCA); 2024 (1) SACR 227 (SCA) (8 November 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

539/2020

Judges

Dambuza, Meyer, Matojane, Goosen, Unterhalter

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Department of Correctional Services' policy prohibiting prisoners from using personal computers in their cells constitutes an unjustified infringement of the right to further education under section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution. The blanket prohibition fails to consider the necessity of computer access for certain courses and does not meet the standard of demonstrable justification required by section 36. The security concerns advanced by the appellants were speculative and unsupported by evidence of incremental risk. The Court further found that the…

Source excerpt

• Right To Further Education
• Unfair Discrimination
• Promotion Of Equality And Prevention Of Unfair Discrimination Act
• Prisoners Rights
• Limitation Of Rights
• Delegated Legislation

WP v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (66090/18)

WP v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (66090/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 88; [2021] 2 All SA 626 (GP); 2021 (2) SACR 76 (GP) (4 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

66090/18

Judge

Kollapen

The High Court dismissed a prisoner’s application for conjugal, extended visitation and cellphone access, holding these are not constitutionally guaranteed rights.

• Prisoners Rights
• Contact Visitation
• Conjugal Visits
• Limitation Of Rights
• Correctional Services Policy
• Prisoners-rights

WP v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (66090/18)

WP v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (66090/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 77 (4 March 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

66090/18

Judge

Kollapen

The court held that while prisoners retain a residuum of rights not inconsistent with incarceration, neither the Constitution nor the Correctional Services Act expressly recognizes a right to conjugal visits. The right to contact, as protected by Section 35(2) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Act, does not extend to sexual intimacy or conjugal visits, but rather to communication and visitation in a generic sense. The current visitation regime, which allows the applicant three contact visits per month, is reasonable and does not constitute an unconstitutional limitation. The prohibiti…

Source excerpt

• Prisoners Rights
• Contact Visitation
• Conjugal Visits
• Limitation Of Rights
• Correctional Services Policy

Durban University of Technology v Godlimpi and Others (D1411/2019)

Durban University of Technology v Godlimpi and Others (D1411/2019) [2020] ZAKZDHC 66 (22 December 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D1411/2019

Judge

Henriques

The court found that the applicant had established the requirements for a final interdict: a clear right to protect its property, staff, and students; injury in the form of violence, property damage, and disruption; and no alternative remedy, as security and police intervention had failed. The respondents' opposition was largely bare denials and did not meaningfully challenge the factual matrix. The relief sought did not infringe constitutional rights to protest or freedom of expression, as it was limited to preventing unlawful conduct and did not prohibit peaceful protest or attendance at le…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Right To Protest
• Limitation Of Rights
• Campus Security
• Regulation Of Gatherings Act
• Costs In Constitutional Matters

Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (CCT320/17)

Freedom of Religion South Africa v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (CCT320/17) [2019] ZACC 34; 2019 (11) BCLR 1321 (CC); 2020 (1) SA 1 (CC); 2020 (1) SACR 113 (CC) (18 September 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 320/17

Judges

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

The Constitutional Court held that the common law defence of reasonable and moderate parental chastisement is inconsistent with the Constitution. The defence unjustifiably limits children’s rights to dignity and to be protected from all forms of violence under sections 10 and 12(1)(c). The Court found that any application of force by a parent to a child, even if moderate and reasonable, constitutes violence and assault. The paramountcy of the best interests of the child requires that children be protected from all forms of violence, and the availability of less restrictive, non-violent discip…

Source excerpt

• Reasonable And Moderate Chastisement
• Best Interests Of The Child
• Freedom Of Religion
• Assault
• Limitation Of Rights
• Parental Authority

Wilkinson and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (50395/2016)

Wilkinson and Another v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (50395/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 229; 2019 (2) SACR 278 (GP) (5 June 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50395/2016

Judge

Molefe

The court held that the application was premature, as constitutional challenges to criminal charges and statutory provisions should be brought within the criminal proceedings, not in abstract before a civil court. The applicants failed to demonstrate why the constitutional issues should be adjudicated before the criminal trial or why such adjudication would be in the interests of justice. On the merits, the court found that the reverse onus provisions in the relevant provincial ordinances are justified under section 36 of the Constitution, given the serious threat posed by rhino poaching and…

Source excerpt

• Reverse Onus Provisions
• Presumption Of Innocence
• Nature Conservation Legislation
• Limitation Of Rights
• Fair Trial Rights
• Rhinoceros Horn Trade

Equal Education and Another v Minister of Basic Education and Others (276/2016)

Equal Education and Another v Minister of Basic Education and Others (276/2016) [2018] ZAECBHC 6; [2018] 3 All SA 705 (ECB); 2018 (9) BCLR 1130 (ECB); 2019 (1) SA 421 (ECB) (19 July 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

276/2016

Judge

N Msizi

The Court held that regulation 4(5)(a) of the Regulations unlawfully limits the right to basic education by making the implementation of minimum norms and standards subject to the resources and cooperation of other government agencies. This qualification undermines the immediacy and enforceability of the right, renders government unaccountable, and is inconsistent with the Constitution, SASA, and the 2013 court order. The Minister failed to justify the limitation under section 36 of the Constitution and did not provide a rational basis for the prioritisation and exclusion mechanisms in the re…

Source excerpt

• Right To Basic Education
• School Infrastructure
• Judicial Review Of Regulations
• Constitutional Accountability
• Cooperative Governance
• Limitation Of Rights