South Africa Case Law

Rafoneke and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (Makombe Intervening) (CCT 315/21, CCT 321/21, CCT 06/22)

Rafoneke and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (Makombe Intervening) (CCT 315/21, CCT 321/21, CCT 06/22) [2022] ZACC 29; 2022 (6) SA 27 (CC); 2022 (12) BCLR 1489 (CC) (2 August 2022)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 315/21, CCT 321/21, CCT 06/22

Judges

Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Mlambo, Tshiqi, Unterhalter

The Constitutional Court held that section 24(2) of the Legal Practice Act, which restricts admission as legal practitioners to citizens and permanent residents, is not unconstitutional. The differentiation is rationally connected to legitimate governmental purposes, including the protection of opportunities for citizens and permanent residents and the regulation of the legal profession in the public interest. The exclusion of other foreign nationals, even those lawfully entitled to live and work in South Africa, does not amount to unfair discrimination under section 9 of the Constitution, as…

Source excerpt

• Legal Practitioners Admission
• Unfair Discrimination
• Equality Clause
• Immigration Status
• Legislative Rationality
• Section 9 Constitution

Bothongo Agriculture (Pty) Ltd v Kerbyland (Pty) Ltd and Others (18781/2018)

Bothongo Agriculture (Pty) Ltd v Kerbyland (Pty) Ltd and Others (18781/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 42 (22 February 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

18781/2018

Judge

Weiner

The court dismissed an application for transfer of property after a right of first refusal was exercised and the sale agreement lapsed on an unmet condition.

• Right Of First Refusal
• Specific Performance
• Unfair Discrimination
• Section 9 Constitution
• Contractual Conditions Precedent
• Misrepresentation

South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard (CCT 01/14)

South African Police Service v Solidarity obo Barnard (CCT 01/14) [2014] ZACC 23; 2014 (6) SA 123 (CC); [2014] 11 BLLR 1025 (CC); 2014 (10) BCLR 1195 (CC); (2014) 35 ILJ 2981 (CC) (2 September 2014)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 01/14

Judges

Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Cameron J, Dambuza AJ, Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Majiedt AJ, Van der Westhuizen J, Zondo J

The Constitutional Court held that the National Commissioner’s decision not to appoint Ms Barnard did not constitute unfair discrimination under section 9(3) of the Constitution or section 6(1) of the Employment Equity Act. The Employment Equity Plan and National Instruction were valid restitutionary measures authorised by law. The Commissioner exercised his discretion rationally and reasonably, taking into account representivity and service delivery. The decision did not amount to the application of impermissible quotas or establish an absolute barrier to Ms Barnard’s advancement, as she was…

Source excerpt

• Affirmative Action
• Employment Equity Act
• Unfair Discrimination
• Section 9 Constitution
• Numerical Targets Vs Quotas
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

South African Police Services v Solidarity obo Barnard (JA24/2010)

South African Police Services v Solidarity obo Barnard (JA24/2010) [2012] ZALAC 31; [2013] 1 BLLR 1 (LAC); 2013 (3) BCLR 320 (LAC); (2013) 34 ILJ 590 (LAC) (2 November 2012)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA24/2010

Judges

Mlambo JP, Davis JA, Jappie JA

The Labour Appeal Court upheld an appeal by SAPS, holding that non-appointment of a white female candidate was justified under its employment equity plan.

• Employment Equity Act
• Affirmative Action
• Section 9 Constitution
• Unfair Discrimination
• Numerical Targets
• Service Delivery