Britton v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (548/2023) [2024] ZASCA 148; 2025 (1) SACR 95 (SCA) (31 October 2024)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
548/2023
Judges
Zondi, Nicholls, Kgoele, Hendricks, Masipa
The SCA held that the Constitutional Court’s invalidation of section 5(1)(a) of the Extradition Act was prospective only, so Britton’s earlier arrest remained valid.
Nzimande and Another v Newcastle Municipality (DA1/2022) [2024] ZALAC 34; [2024] 11 BLLR 1120 (LAC) (10 July 2024)
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Case number
DA1/2022
Judges
Van Niekerk JA, Nkutha-Nkontwana JA, Govindjee AJA
The Labour Appeal Court held that the municipal manager acted unlawfully and without authority when extending the appellants' fixed-term contracts in direct contravention of a clear council resolution. The principle of legality, as entrenched in the Constitution and relevant statutes, required the manager to act within the council's policy directions. The Labour Court was correct to review and set aside the extensions under section 158(1)(h) of the LRA, and the error in classification did not affect the outcome. The review was instituted within a reasonable time, and procedural irregularities…
K.R.G v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (40023/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 311; [2022] 3 All SA 58 (GP); 2022 (5) SA 478 (GP) (11 May 2022)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
40023/21
Judge
E van der Schyff
Section 7(3)(a) of the Divorce Act, which restricts the court's discretion to grant redistribution orders to marriages out of community of property entered into before 1 November 1984, constitutes unfair discrimination and violates section 9(3) of the Constitution. The time-bar arbitrarily excludes economically disadvantaged spouses married after that date from seeking just and equitable relief, despite similar circumstances to those married before the cut-off. The differentiation is not justified by any legitimate government purpose and perpetuates economic and gender-based inequality. The c…
Du Toit and Others v Provincial Minister of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning: Western Cape and Others (14275/16) [2018] ZAWCHC 58; [2018] 3 All SA 532 (WCC); 2019 (1) SACR 311 (WCC) (24 May 2018)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
14275/16
Judge
Le Grange
The court found that the nature conservation officials were lawfully present on the public road and entitled to stop the Applicants and request documentation under sections 21(1)(a) and (e) of the Ordinance, whose constitutionality was not challenged. The items seized, including kudu carcasses, spotlights, battery, hunting rifles, and an injured steenbok, were all in plain public view and thus did not attract a reasonable expectation of privacy. The use of a torch to illuminate the interior of the vehicle did not constitute a search, as the items would have been visible in daylight. The court…
Ramuhovhi and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (CCT194/16) [2017] ZACC 41; 2018 (2) BCLR 217 (CC); 2018 (2) SA 1 (CC) (30 November 2017)
Section 7(1) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, as applied to pre-Act polygamous customary marriages, is unconstitutional because it perpetuates unfair discrimination against women on the grounds of gender and marital status, denying them ownership and control over marital property and violating their rights to equality and dignity. The Court confirmed the High Court's declaration of invalidity, suspended the order for 24 months to allow Parliament to remedy the defect, and provided interim relief granting wives and husbands joint and equal ownership and management rig…
Rahube v Rahube and Others (101250/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 651; 2018 (1) SA 638 (GP) (26 September 2017)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
101250/2015
Judge
Kollapen
Section 2(1) of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act 112 of 1991 is unconstitutional to the extent that it provides for the automatic conversion of tenure rights into ownership without notice or an opportunity for affected parties to be heard. The legislative scheme perpetuated gender discrimination by excluding women from ownership, as the underlying Proclamation was racist and sexist. The absence of procedural safeguards violated the rights to equality and access to courts under sections 9 and 34 of the Constitution. The declaration of invalidity is made retrospective to 27 April 1994, b…
Both section 32A of the Estate Agency Affairs Act and section 45B of the Financial Intelligence Centre Act are constitutionally invalid because they authorise warrantless searches without sufficient safeguards, failing to differentiate between types of searches or premises and lacking requirements for suspicion or judicial oversight. The right to privacy under section 14 of the Constitution is unjustifiably limited by these provisions. The declarations of invalidity are not retrospective, protecting past actions taken in good faith under the statutes. The invalidity is suspended for 24 months…
Ivanov v North West Gambling Board and Others (312/2011) [2012] ZASCA 92; 2012 (6) SA 67 (SCA); 2012 (2) SACR 408 (SCA); [2012] 4 All SA 1 (SCA) (31 May 2012)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
312/2011
Judges
Cloete, Heher, Snyders, Mhlantla, McLaren
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the declaration of invalidity of the search warrant operated retrospectively, rendering the search and seizure unlawful from the outset. The appellant was entitled to restoration of possession under the mandament van spolie, regardless of the illegality of his possession of gambling machines. The lawfulness or illegality of possession is irrelevant in spoliation proceedings; the remedy is designed to prevent self-help and restore the status quo ante. Public policy and statutory prohibitions do not bar restoration under spoliation, as criminal law enforcem…
The Constitutional Court held that Road Accident Fund compensation caps for certain passengers were unfairly discriminatory and invalid, but suspended the order for 18 months.
Geldenhuys v National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (CCT 26/08) [2008] ZACC 21; 2009 (2) SA 310 (CC); 2009 (1) SACR 231 (CC); ; 2009 (5) BCLR 435 (CC) (26 November 2008)
Court
Constitutional Court
Case number
CCT 26/08
Judges
Mokgoro, Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob
Sections 14(1)(b) and 14(3)(b) of the Sexual Offences Act set a higher age of consent for same-sex sexual acts (19 years) than for opposite-sex acts (16 years), amounting to discrimination based on sexual orientation. This differentiation does not serve a rational government purpose and is presumed unfair under section 9(3) of the Constitution. No justification was provided by the State or respondents to rebut this presumption. The provisions perpetuate harmful stereotypes and are inconsistent with the values of equality, dignity, and freedom. The Court confirmed the Supreme Court of Appeal's…
