South Africa Case Law

South African Navy and Another v Tebeila Institute of Leadership, Education, Governance and Training (252/2019)

South African Navy and Another v Tebeila Institute of Leadership, Education, Governance and Training (252/2019) [2021] ZASCA 23; [2021] 6 BLLR 555 (SCA); (2021) 42 ILJ 1431 (SCA) (19 March 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

252/2019

Judges

Petse, Mbha, Mbatha, Goosen, Unterhalter

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld a challenge to a ruling against Navy age limits for MSDS recruitment, finding the policy was not unfair discrimination.

• Unfair Discrimination
• Right To Equality
• Age Based Employment Policy
• Right To Further Education
• Bill Of Rights Obligations
• Unfair-discrimination

Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd v KwaZulu-Natal Law Society and Others (9090/18)

Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd v KwaZulu-Natal Law Society and Others (9090/18) [2019] ZAKZPHC 6; [2019] 2 All SA 399 (KZP); 2019 (4) SA 200 (KZP) (22 February 2019)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

9090/18

Judge

Sibiya AJ

Section 26(1)(a) of the Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014, by restricting entry into the legal profession to graduates with an LLB degree from a 'university', excludes private higher education institutions that are duly accredited and registered to offer the LLB degree. The exclusion is not rationally connected to any legitimate government purpose, as the applicant's LLB degree is accredited by the same body and held to the same standards as those offered by public universities. The differentiation is arbitrary and unjustifiable, infringing the rights to equality, freedom of trade and occupation,…

Source excerpt

• Legal Practice Act
• Right To Equality
• Right To Education
• Admission To Legal Profession
• Statutory Interpretation

Rustenburg Platinum Mine v SAEWA obo Bester and Others (CCT127/17)

Rustenburg Platinum Mine v SAEWA obo Bester and Others (CCT127/17) [2018] ZACC 13; (2018) 39 ILJ 1503 (CC); 2018 (8) BCLR 951 (CC); [2018] 8 BLLR 735 (CC); 2018 (5) SA 78 (CC) (17 May 2018)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 127/17

Judges

Zondo ACJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Kollapen AJ, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Zondi AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the use of the term 'swart man' by Mr Bester in the workplace context was racist and derogatory, given South Africa's history and the charged environment of the mining industry. The Court found that both the commissioner and the Labour Appeal Court misapplied the objective test by failing to consider the totality of circumstances and the impact of apartheid's legacy. The evidence established that such language was prohibited and detrimental in the workplace, and Mr Bester's denial and lack of remorse aggravated the misconduct. The Court concluded that dismis…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Racist Conduct In Workplace
• Right To Dignity
• Right To Equality
• Objective Test For Racism
• Remedies For Unfair Dismissal

Nandutu and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (11440/17)

Nandutu and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Others (11440/17) [2018] ZAWCHC 47; [2018] 3 All SA 259 (WCC) (18 April 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11440/17

Judge

Thulare

The court held that Regulation 9(9)(a) of the Immigration Regulations is not inconsistent with the Constitution. The distinction between section 11(1) visitor’s visa holders and accompanying spouses or children of holders of work or business visas is rational and justified by the need for health, social, economic, and security risk assessments at the time of admission. The applicants failed to comply with the prescribed requirements for a spousal visa and did not apply for a waiver under section 31(2)(c) of the Immigration Act. The regulation does not create an absolute bar to change of statu…

Source excerpt

• Immigration Act
• Regulation 9 9 A
• Right To Dignity
• Right To Equality
• Waiver Of Prescribed Requirements
• Spousal Visa

Rahube v Rahube and Others (101250/2015)

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…

Source excerpt

• Gender Discrimination
• Automatic Conversion Of Tenure
• Right To Property
• Right To Equality
• Access To Courts
• Retrospective Invalidity

Mhlongo v S; Nkosi v S (CCT148/14; CCT149/14)

Mhlongo v S; Nkosi v S (CCT148/14; CCT149/14) [2015] ZACC 19; 2015 (2) SACR 323 (CC); 2015 (8) BCLR 887 (CC) (25 June 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT148/14; CCT149/14

Judges

Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jappie AJ, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Molemela AJ, Nkabinde J, Theron AJ, Tshiqi AJ

The Constitutional Court held that the common law position prior to Ndhlovu, which prohibited the admission of extra-curial statements by an accused against a co-accused, must be restored. The Court found that the distinction drawn in Ndhlovu between admissions and confessions is irrational and unjustifiable, as it leads to differential treatment of accused persons without a legitimate purpose. Section 219A of the Criminal Procedure Act and section 3(2) of the Law of Evidence Amendment Act do not alter the common law prohibition. Admitting extra-curial admissions against co-accused unjustifia…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Extra Curial Statements
• Hearsay Evidence
• Right To Equality
• Fair Trial Rights
• Law Of Evidence Amendment Act

Solidarity obo van der Walt and Others v South African Police Service and Others (J 412/13)

Solidarity obo van der Walt and Others v South African Police Service and Others (J 412/13) [2013] ZALCJHB 130; [2013] 8 BLLR 816 (LC); (2013) 34 ILJ 2943 (LC) (28 February 2013)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J 412/13

Judge

Steenkamp

The Labour Court granted urgent interim relief stopping SAPS promotions under a disputed equity agreement pending related main proceedings.

• Employment Equity
• Interdict Pendente Lite
• Demographic Targets
• Quota Systems
• Right To Equality
• Collective Agreements

Fourie and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (232/2003)

Fourie and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (232/2003) [2004] ZASCA 132; [2005] 1 All SA 273 (SCA); 2005 (3) SA 429 (SCA); 2005 (3) BCLR 241 (SCA) (30 November 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

232/2003

Judges

E Cameron, Mthiyane, Farlam

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the common law definition of marriage, which excludes same-sex couples, constitutes unfair discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and infringes the constitutional rights to equality and dignity. The court found that the exclusion is not justified and that the development of the common law to include same-sex partners is an incremental step required by the Constitution. The court rejected the argument that such development would intrude on the legislative domain, noting that judicial development of the common law is mandated where necessary to g…

Source excerpt

• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Right To Equality
• Sexual Orientation Discrimination
• Development Of Common Law
• Marriage Act Interpretation

Mercer and Another (CCT31/02), Ex parte

Mercer and Another (CCT31/02), Ex parte [2002] ZACC 23; 2003 (1) SA 203 (CC) (28 October 2002)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT31/02

Judges

Chaskalson, Langa, Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that, despite the constitutional issues raised regarding equality and environmental rights, it would be premature to hear the matter before the High Court has adjudicated the appeal and constitutional challenge. The applicants failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting direct access. The application for direct access was therefore refused.

Source excerpt

• Right To Equality
• Environmental Rights
• Direct Access
• Constitutionality Of Legislation