South Africa Case Law

South African Iron and Steel Institute and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 240/22)

South African Iron and Steel Institute and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT 240/22) [2023] ZACC 18; 2023 (10) BCLR 1232 (CC) (26 June 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 240/22

Judges

Maya, Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Makgoka, Mathopo, Potterill, Rogers, Theron

The Constitutional Court held that Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures failed to comply with their constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement when material amendments were made to the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act 2 of 2022. The amendments to the definitions of 'waste', 'commercial value', 'trade in', and the transitional provision were substantive and significantly expanded the regulatory scope, affecting a new class of persons and imposing onerous requirements. The lack of further public participation after these amendments was unreasonable and…

Source excerpt

• Public Participation
• National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act
• Definition Of Waste
• Parliamentary Process
• Declaration Of Invalidity
• Procedural Fairness

South African Veterinary Association v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT27/18)

South African Veterinary Association v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT27/18) [2018] ZACC 49; 2019 (2) BCLR 273 (CC); 2019 (3) SA 62 (CC) (5 December 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT27/18

Judges

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

The Court found that the National Assembly failed to facilitate public participation when inserting the word 'veterinarian' into section 22C(1)(a) of the Medicines and Related Substances Act, as no public hearings or invitations to affected groups occurred after the amendment. The National Council of Provinces and Provincial Legislatures also failed to provide reasonable notice and did not invite submissions from veterinary organisations. These failures breached sections 59(1)(a), 72(1)(a), and 118(1)(a) of the Constitution. The amendment was material, affecting the entire veterinary professi…

Source excerpt

• Public Participation
• Parliamentary Process
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Severability
• Bill Of Rights Enforcement

Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (CCT186/16)

Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (CCT186/16) [2016] ZACC 26; 2016 (11) BCLR 1419 (CC) (25 August 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 186/16

Judges

Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mbha, Mhlantla, Musi, Zondo

The Constitutional Court extended the suspension of invalidity of the Performing Animals Protection Act provisions until 31 July 2017.

• Suspension Of Invalidity
• Separation Of Powers
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Parliamentary Process
• Finality Of Litigation
• Suspension-of-invalidity

Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (CCT 122/15)

Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries v National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (CCT 122/15) [2015] ZACC 27; 2015 (11) BCLR 1387 (CC) (28 August 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 122/15

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Matojane, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Wallis, Zondo

The Constitutional Court found that the applicant had acted with sufficient diligence in pursuing the legislative amendments required to cure the constitutional defect in the Performing Animals Protection Act. The delay was attributable to additional amendments requested by the Portfolio Committee, which necessitated further parliamentary procedures. The Court held that refusing the extension would render the Act unworkable, preventing the issuance and renewal of licences and causing significant prejudice to the public and businesses. The Court determined that it was just and equitable to gra…

Source excerpt

• Suspension Of Order Of Invalidity
• Performing Animals Protection Act
• Just And Equitable Relief
• Parliamentary Process
• Public Interest

Tshabalala v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (18871/2014)

Tshabalala v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (18871/2014) [2014] ZAWCHC 169 (12 November 2014)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18871/2014

Judge

Baartman

The court held that the inquiry conducted by the Portfolio Committee for Communications under section 15A(1) of the Broadcasting Act is a parliamentary process, not a disciplinary inquiry. However, because the inquiry constitutes administrative action, the principles of natural justice, including procedural fairness, must apply. The applicant is entitled to legal representation and access to all relevant documents. Furthermore, the applicant must be given a copy of the committee's findings and a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing before the report is submitted to the National Assemb…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Disciplinary Inquiry
• Natural Justice
• Parliamentary Process

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

Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 41/08)

Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT 41/08) [2008] ZACC 19; 2009 (1) SA 287 (CC); 2009 (2) BCLR 136 (CC) (22 October 2008)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 41/08

Judges

Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that it is not appropriate to intervene in the legislative process at this stage. The applicant failed to demonstrate material and irreversible harm that could not be remedied after the legislation is enacted. The Court emphasised that Parliament may amend or reject the proposed Bills, and the content and effect of the legislation cannot be determined until the process is complete. The separation of powers requires courts to refrain from interfering with the autonomy of the executive and legislature in the law-making process, except in truly exceptional circumsta…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Powers
• Judicial Review
• Legality Principle
• Direct Access
• Parliamentary Process
• Constitutional Remedies