South Africa Case Law

Centre for Child Law v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (CCT98/08)

Centre for Child Law v Minister for Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (CCT98/08) [2009] ZACC 18; 2009 (2) SACR 477 (CC) ; 2009 (6) SA 632 (CC) ; 2009 (11) BCLR 1105 (CC) (15 July 2009)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT98/08

Judges

Cameron, Langa, Moseneke, Mokgoro, O'Regan, Sachs, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, Skweyiya

The majority of the Constitutional Court held that the application of minimum sentencing provisions to offenders aged 16 and 17 years old is inconsistent with section 28(1)(g) and 28(2) of the Constitution. The impugned provisions remove the constitutionally mandated distinction between children and adults, impose harsher sentences, and undermine the principles of imprisonment as a last resort and for the shortest appropriate period. The Minister failed to provide sufficient justification for this limitation under section 36. The Court declared the relevant sections of the Criminal Law Amendm…

Source excerpt

• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Minimum Sentencing
• Juvenile Justice
• Section 28 Child Rights
• Statutory Invalidity

Lephondo v Dihlabeng Local Municipality (7493/2008)

Lephondo v Dihlabeng Local Municipality (7493/2008) [2009] ZAFSHC 99 (25 June 2009)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

7493/2008

Judge

C.H.G. Van der Merwe

The court held that section 14 of the Local Government: Municipal Finance Management Act requires a municipal council to consider and approve the disposal of capital assets in a public meeting before any transfer or disposal can occur. The sale agreement between the applicant and respondent was concluded without such council approval and did not reference compliance with section 14. As a result, the agreement constituted a contract to commit an act made unlawful by statute and was therefore void. The power of attorney authorising transfer pursuant to the invalid agreement was likewise void. T…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Asset Disposal
• Alienation Of Land
• Statutory Invalidity
• Local Government Finance Management
• Contract Void For Illegality

King and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control and Another (561/2004)

King and Others v Attorneys Fidelity Fund Board of Control and Another (561/2004) [2005] ZASCA 96; [2006] 1 All SA 458 (SCA); 2006 (4) BCLR 462 (SCA); 2006 (1) SA 474 (SCA) (29 September 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

561/2004

Judges

Harms, Cameron, Mthiyane, Nugent, Jafta

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that it does not have jurisdiction to declare a statute invalid on the grounds that Parliament failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation to facilitate public involvement in the legislative process. Such jurisdiction is reserved exclusively for the Constitutional Court under section 167(4)(e) of the Constitution. The court distinguished between statutory invalidity arising from procedural prerequisites and invalidity arising from breach of constitutional obligations, finding that only the latter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional…

Source excerpt

• Public Involvement In Legislation
• Constitutional Obligation
• Statutory Invalidity
• Jurisdiction Of Courts

Geue and Another v Van Der Lith and Another (625/02)

Geue and Another v Van Der Lith and Another (625/02) [2003] ZASCA 118; [2003] 4 All SA 553 (SCA); 2004 (3) SA 333 (SCA) (20 November 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

625/02

Judges

MPATI, STREICHER, BRAND, CONRADIE, HEHER

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a sale of undivided agricultural land subject to ministerial consent still fell within the statutory ban and was null and void.

• Subdivision Of Agricultural Land Act
• Statutory Invalidity
• Suspensive Condition
• Ministerial Consent
• Contract Nullity
• Subdivision-of-agricultural-land-act

Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and Others (CCT36/00)

Prince v President of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope and Others (CCT36/00) [2000] ZACC 28; 2001 (2) SA 388 (CC); 2001 (2) BCLR 133 (CC); 2001 (1) SACR 217 (CC) (12 December 2000)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT36/00

Judges

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

The Constitutional Court adjourned the cannabis-religion challenge for further evidence and held that the Supreme Court Act quorum provision was invalid.

• Freedom Of Religion
• Limitation Of Rights
• Judicial Quorum
• Statutory Invalidity
• Religious Exemption
• Admission To Legal Profession