South Africa Case Law

Democratic Alliance and Another v Public Protector of South Africa and Others (CCT 251/22; CCT 252/22 ;CCT 299/22 ;CCT 251/22 ;CCT 252/22; CCT 299/22)

Democratic Alliance and Another v Public Protector of South Africa and Others (CCT 251/22; CCT 252/22 ;CCT 299/22 ;CCT 251/22 ;CCT 252/22; CCT 299/22) [2023] ZACC 25; 2023 (11) BCLR 1281 (CC); 2024 (3) SA 1 (CC) (13 July 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 251/22; CCT 252/22; CCT 299/22

Judges

Maya, Baqwa, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mbatha, Mhlantla, Rogers, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that the President's decision to suspend the Public Protector constituted 'conduct' within the meaning of sections 167(5) and 172(2)(a) of the Constitution and was thus subject to confirmation. On the merits, the Court found that the President did not act in breach of section 96(2)(b), as there was no real risk of a conflict between his official responsibilities and private interests. The evidence did not support a finding of bias or a reasonable apprehension of bias; the suspension was precautionary, rational, and necessary to protect the integrity of the office…

Source excerpt

• Presidential Conduct
• Conflict Of Interest
• Precautionary Suspension
• Section 194 Removal Process
• Sub Judice Rule
• Confirmation Of Invalidity Orders

Public Protector of South Africa v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (8500/2022)

Public Protector of South Africa v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (8500/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 222 (3 November 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8500/2022

Judges

L G Nuku, M Francis, J D Lekhuleni

The High Court dismissed leave-to-appeal applications against its section 18 ruling, holding that SCA appeal would be futile and that the Constitutional Court would resolve the dispute.

• Confirmation Of Invalidity
• Interim Orders
• Leave To Appeal
• Presidential Conduct
• Section 18 Superior Courts Act
• Section 172 Constitution

Public Protector of South Africa v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (8500/2022)

Public Protector of South Africa v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (8500/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 197; [2023] 1 All SA 256 (WCC); 2023 (4) SA 205 (WCC) (11 October 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8500/2022

Judges

L G Nuku, M Francis, JD Lekhuleni

The High Court held that the President’s suspension of the Public Protector was conduct of the President requiring Constitutional Court confirmation.

• Presidential Conduct
• Chapter 9 Institutions
• Declaration Of Invalidity
• Confirmation Proceedings
• Suspension Pending Appeal
• Constitutional-law

Law Society of South Africa and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT67/18)

Law Society of South Africa and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT67/18) [2018] ZACC 51; 2019 (3) BCLR 329 (CC); 2019 (3) SA 30 (CC) (11 December 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 67/18

Judges

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

The Constitutional Court held that the President's participation in the suspension of the SADC Tribunal and his signature of the 2014 Protocol were unconstitutional, unlawful and irrational. The President acted contrary to South Africa's binding obligations under the SADC Treaty, which guarantees access to justice and the protection of human rights. The process followed to amend the Tribunal's jurisdiction was irregular and did not comply with the Treaty’s requirement for a three-quarters majority. The President lacked the authority to sign the Protocol without parliamentary approval, and his…

Source excerpt

• Presidential Conduct
• International Treaty Obligations
• Access To Justice
• Rule Of Law
• Separation Of Powers
• Sadc Tribunal

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa and Another: In re Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT31/99)

Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa and Another: In re Ex Parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT31/99) [2000] ZACC 1; 2000 (2) SA 674; 2000 (3) BCLR 241 (25 February 2000)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT31/99

Judges

Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Ackermann J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Yacoob J, Cameron AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the President's decision to bring the South African Medicines and Medical Devices Regulatory Authority Act, 132 of 1998, into force was not rationally related to the purpose for which the power was conferred. The necessary regulatory infrastructure, including schedules and regulations, was not in place, rendering the regulatory regime unworkable and exposing the public to significant risks. The President acted in good faith but under a mistaken belief, and the decision was objectively irrational. The Court confirmed that all exercises of public power must co…

Source excerpt

• Doctrine Of Legality
• Ultra Vires
• Presidential Conduct
• Rationality Review
• Judicial Review Of Executive Action