South Africa Case Law

Nu Africa Duty-Free Shops (Pty) Limited v Minister of Finance and Others

The Constitutional Court held that the impugned empowering provisions did not unconstitutionally delegate plenary legislative power and did not violate section 77 because they formed part of a temporally limited fiscal scheme subject to parliamentary oversight; however, in the review appeals the court split, with Mathopo J dismissing the reviews and Rogers J holding some review grounds established. The formal order followed the majority in CCT 29/22 refusing confirmation and, in CCT 57/22 and CCT 58/22, granting leave to appeal and dismissing the appeals, with costs orders as stated.

Source excerpt

• Delegation of legislative power
• Separation of powers
• Section 77 money bills
• Rationality review
• Procedural fairness
• Vagueness

Hamsa Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v Sigodi Marah Martin Management Support (Pty) Ltd (32290/2020)

Hamsa Consulting Engineers (Pty) Ltd v Sigodi Marah Martin Management Support (Pty) Ltd (32290/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 759 (29 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

32290/2020

Judge

Millar

The High Court held that a written engineering-services agreement was binding and enforceable, rejecting vagueness and agreement-to-agree defences.

• Contractual Liability
• Locatio Conductio Operis
• Agreement To Agree
• Vagueness In Contracts
• Reciprocal Obligations
• Contract-law

Zahos and Others v Anastassopoulos and Others (22/1012)

Zahos and Others v Anastassopoulos and Others (22/1012) [2022] ZAGPJHC 393 (29 April 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22/1012

Judge

Windell

The High Court discharged most of an urgent interim interdict for lack of primary facts and vagueness, confirming only relief tied to alleged assault by the first respondent.

• Interim Interdict
• Urgent Ex Parte Application
• Business Relationship Dispute
• Rule Nisi
• Locus Standi
• Interim-interdict

Jonathan Dubula Qwelane versus South African Human Rights Commission and Another

Section 10(1) of the Equality Act is constitutionally invalid only to the extent that it includes the word "hurtful" in the prohibition against hate speech, because that term is vague and unjustifiably limits freedom of expression; the rest of the provision can be read constitutionally. On an objective contextual assessment, Mr Qwelane’s article vilified the LGBT+ community, demonstrated a clear intention to be harmful or to incite harm and to promote hatred, and therefore constituted hate speech under section 10.

Source excerpt

• Hate speech
• Constitutionality of statutory provision
• Vagueness
• Limitations of rights
• Costs

Hospital Association of South Africa NPC v MEC for Health for the Free State Province (A45/2015)

Hospital Association of South Africa NPC v MEC for Health for the Free State Province (A45/2015) [2016] ZAFSHC 223 (22 December 2016)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A45/2015

Judges

Molemela JP, Musi J, Daffue J

The court set aside key Free State health-establishment regulations for vagueness and unclear registration/licensing requirements, suspending the order for six months.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Principle Of Legality
• Vagueness Of Regulations
• Procedural Fairness
• Licensing And Registration
• Healthcare Regulation

Bertie Van Zyl (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister for Safety and Security and Others

Section 20(1)(a), read with the definition of 'security service' and the Act as a whole, is construed to apply to persons whose core duty is to protect or safeguard persons or property against unlawful human harm in the private security sense, including farm workers used by their employers as security guards; it is therefore not overbroad or vague. Sections 28(2) and 28(3)(b) validly extend the Code to in-house security personnel and, to the extent provided in the Act, to their employers, because in-house security forms part of the private security industry and the extension serves the legiti…

Source excerpt

• Statutory interpretation
• Vagueness
• Overbreadth
• Private security regulation
• Constitutional validity
• Costs

Minister of Health and Another v New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others

The Court held that the regulatory scheme for a transparent pricing system under section 22G was broadly authorised and the appeal succeeded in part, but several specific provisions were invalid or required severance/reading-in. The Court further held that the dispensing fees set for pharmacists were not appropriate because the Pricing Committee and Minister failed properly to account for relevant considerations, including the viability of pharmacies and the special position of rural and courier pharmacies, and failed adequately to explain how the fees were calculated.

Source excerpt

• Paja applicability
• Regulation-making
• Pricing of medicines
• Procedural fairness
• Reasonableness
• Lawfulness

Affordable Medicines Trust and Others v Minister of Health and Another

Section 22C(1)(a) validly permits licensing on prescribed conditions because the Director-General’s discretion is constrained by the Medicines Act, its objectives, and the regulatory framework. Requiring dispensing licences to be tied to premises is rationally connected to the legitimate purpose of ensuring safe medicines and does not impermissibly limit the choice of profession. However, sub-regulation 18(5)(a), (c), (d) and (e) are invalid because, properly construed, they implement a policy of denying licences where pharmacies are nearby, a policy not authorized by the Medicines Act and no…

Source excerpt

• Legality
• Vagueness
• Regulation of a profession
• Licensing scheme for dispensing medicines
• Rationality review
• Costs in constitutional litigation

Phillips and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (CCT20/02)

Phillips and Another v Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (CCT20/02) [2003] ZACC 1; 2003 (3) SA 345 (CC); 2003 (4) BCLR 357 (CC); 2003 (1) SACR 425 (CC) (11 March 2003)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT20/02

Judges

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

The Constitutional Court held that section 160(d) of the Liquor Act unconstitutionally limited freedom of expression because it was overbroad and captured theatrical performances.

• Freedom Of Expression
• Limitation Of Rights
• Liquor Regulation
• Vagueness
• Rule Of Law
• Freedom-of-expression

Staatspresident van Republiek van Suid-Afrika and Others v United Democratic Front and Another (204/87)

Staatspresident van Republiek van Suid-Afrika and Others v United Democratic Front and Another (204/87) [1988] ZASCA 90; [1988] 2 All SA 631 (A); (13 September 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

204/87

Judges

Rabie, Van Heerden, Hefer, Grosskopf, Vivier

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the State President was empowered under the Public Safety Act to issue regulations restricting the publication of information about restricted gatherings, even if such gatherings were lawful subject to conditions. The Court found that the purpose of these restrictions was to prevent public disorder and maintain safety during a state of emergency, and that the method chosen—limiting publicity through certain media—was within the discretion granted by the Act. The Court disagreed with the lower court's finding that such regulations were ultra vires simply b…

Source excerpt

• Ultra Vires
• Delegation Of Powers
• Vagueness
• Emergency Regulations
• Freedom Of Expression