South Africa Case Law

Economic Freedom Fighters v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another

The Court held that section 18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalises incitement of another to commit 'any offence', because that phrase is overbroad and disproportionately limits protected freedom of expression under section 16(1) when a less restrictive means would be to confine the offence to serious offences. The Court also held that the High Court's invalidation of the sentencing aspect could not stand, because 'liable' does not mean mandatory punishment. The applicants' Trespass Act claim was refused because they did not launch a direc…

Source excerpt

• Freedom of expression
• Incitement
• Sentencing
• Overbreadth
• Less restrictive means
• Trespass

Varikas v Minister Of Safety And Security and Others (4449/2013)

Varikas v Minister Of Safety And Security and Others (4449/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 55 (24 April 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4449/2013

Judge

A. Kruger

The High Court granted leave to appeal on whether a search warrant’s description of premises was sufficiently clear and whether it was overbroad.

• Search And Seizure
• Validity Of Warrant
• Overbreadth Of Warrant
• Search-and-seizure
• Search-warrants
• Warrant-validity

Savoi and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (CCT 71/13)

Savoi and Others v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Another (CCT 71/13) [2014] ZACC 5; 2014 (5) BCLR 606 (CC); 2014 (1) SACR 545 (CC); 2014 (5) SA 317 (CC) (20 March 2014)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 71/13

Judges

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

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants have standing to challenge the constitutionality of POCA, but their challenge fails on all substantive grounds. The definitions of 'pattern of racketeering activity' and 'enterprise' in POCA are not void for vagueness or overbroad; they are sufficiently clear and tailored to address the multifaceted nature of organised crime. The procedural challenge to section 2(2) of POCA fails because the provision contains an explicit safeguard: evidence may only be admitted if it does not render the trial unfair, and the determination of fairness is left…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Void For Vagueness
• Overbreadth
• Retrospectivity
• Fair Trial Rights
• Admissibility Of Evidence

Bertie Van Zyl (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister for Safety and Security and Others

Section 20(1)(a), read with the definition of 'security service' and the Act as a whole, is construed to apply to persons whose core duty is to protect or safeguard persons or property against unlawful human harm in the private security sense, including farm workers used by their employers as security guards; it is therefore not overbroad or vague. Sections 28(2) and 28(3)(b) validly extend the Code to in-house security personnel and, to the extent provided in the Act, to their employers, because in-house security forms part of the private security industry and the extension serves the legiti…

Source excerpt

• Statutory interpretation
• Vagueness
• Overbreadth
• Private security regulation
• Constitutional validity
• Costs

Prince v President Cape Law Society and Others

The prohibition on cannabis is unconstitutional to the extent that it proscribes bona fide Rastafari religious use and possession that has not been shown to pose a risk of harm and could be regulated without undermining the statutory purpose; however, the matter of the precise exemption is left to Parliament, and the declaration of invalidity is suspended for 12 months.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of religion
• Limitations clause
• Overbreadth
• Religious exemption
• Cannabis possession and use
• Reasonable accommodation

Case and Another v Minister of Safety and Security and Others; Curtis v Minister of Safety and Security and Others

Section 2(1) of the Indecent or Obscene Photographic Matter Act 37 of 1967, read with section 1’s definition, is unconstitutionally overbroad because it sweeps in a vast range of constitutionally protected expressive material and therefore unreasonably and unjustifiably limits freedom of expression. It cannot be saved by severance or reading down, and invalidity should not be suspended because the remaining 1974 Act sufficiently addresses legitimate regulatory concerns.

Source excerpt

• Freedom of expression
• Right to privacy
• Overbreadth
• Severance
• Reading down
• Obscenity regulation