Below is an overview of the most recent judgment that the Constitutional Court has handed down. A more comprehensive list of recent judgments can be found on the recent judgments page.
The Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa v The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others
| Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
Judgment Date | Majority Author |
Vote |
| CCT 91/12 |
North Gauteng High Court, 3 Sep. 2012 |
19 Feb. 2013 |
23 May 2013 | Nkabinde J. | Unanimous |
The Constitutional Court, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Nkabinde, found the President's decision to have been procedurally fair and rational, and so dismissed the application and set aside the High Court's order of invalidity.
Read our full summary here.
Download the judgment here.Rademan v Moqhaka Municipality and Others
| Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
Judgment Date | Majority Author |
Vote |
| CCT 41/12 |
Free State High Court, 2 Sep. 2010 SCA, 1 Dec. 2011 |
5 Feb. 2013 |
26 Apr. 2013 | Zondo J. | Unanimous |
Ms Olga Rademan lives within the Moqhaka Municipality ("the Municipality"), and refused to pay taxes and levies on her property. She is a member of the Moqhaka Rate Payers' and Residents' Association to which she pays the amount due in respect of property rates. She had however paid the Municipality what was due for services, including electricity. On 17 August 2009, Ms Rademan's electricty supply was cut off by the municipality.
Ms Rademan brought an urgent application before the Kroonstaad magistrate's court for the restoration of her electricity supply and this was granted. The Municipality appealed to the High Court, and the High Court overturned the Magistrate's decision finding that the Municipality was within its rights to disconnect Ms Rademan's electricity. The Supreme Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court, and Ms Rademan appealed to the Constitutional Court.
In a judgment authored by Justice Zondo, the Constitutional Court held that Ms Rademan had violated the payment conditions in terms of the relevant legislative framework, and the fact she had paid her electricity account did not preclude the Municipality from cutting off her electricity. The Municipality was therefore entitled to disconnect Ms Rademan's electricity account.Justice Froneman wrote a separate opinion but concurred in the result of the main judgment.
Read our full summary here.
Download the judgment here.
KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liason Committee v Member of the Executive Council Department of Education, KwaZulu-Natal and Others
| Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
Judgment Date | Majority Author |
Vote |
| CCT 60/12 | KwaZulu-Natal High Court, 4 Oct. 2011 |
22 Nov. 2012 |
25 Apr. 2013 | Cameron J. | 6-4 |
The KwaZulu-Natal Joint Liaison Committee ("the Committee") is an association of independent schools that describe themselves as impoverished and dependent on State subsidies. The Committee brought the case on the basis that the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education ("the Department") issued a notice in September 2008 setting out "approximate" subsidies for the 2009/2010 year. The subsidies actually paid out were on average 30% less than stipulated in the notice.
The Constitutional Court in its majority judgment authored by Justice Cameron found that once a public official had made a public statement of a promise to pay specified amounts, that amount could not be unilaterally reduced after the due date for payment. The Constitutional Court therefore overturned the High Court decision and ordered the Department to pay the approximate amounts specified in the 2008 notice.
Justice Froneman wrote a separate and concurring judgment. Justices Nkabinde and Zondo each wrote dissenting judgments. The Chief Justice and Justice Jafta also wrote a joint dissent, in which they agreed with Justice Zondo and partly with Justice Nkabinde. For more details on the main, separate and dissenting judgments please read our full summary
here.
Download the judgment here.
Agri South Africa v Minister of Minerals and Energy
| Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
Judgment Date | Majority Author |
Vote |
| CCT 80/12 | North Gauteng High Court, 28 Apr. 2011 SCA, 31 May 2012 |
8 Nov. 2012 |
18 Apr. 2013 | Mogoeng CJ | Unanimous |
The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 ("the MPRDA") replaced the previous system of private ownership of mineral rights (under the Minerals Act of 1991) with a system of "State custodianship" of all mineral rights, whereby the State grants mining and prospecting rights to applicants in the form of qualified administrative licences. While the High Court held that, by extinguishing the previous mineral rights and vesting them in the State, the MPRDA had expropriated all of those previous mineral rights, which entitled all previous mineral right holders to compensation. The SCA disagreed, holding that the ownership of mineral rights has always been vested in the State and that the MPRDA therefore did not bring about a blanket expropriation of pre-existing mineral rights.
The Constitutional Court decided unanimously that Agri SA should be granted leave to appeal, as it had raised important constitutional issues and had reasonable prospects of success, but that the appeal itself should be dismissed. The Court was divided, however, as to why the appeal should fail.
Read our full summary here.
Download the judgment here.
Below are overviews of the cases that the Constitutional Court is scheduled to hear in the next few weeks. Overviews of all the cases scheduled to be heard this term can be found on the upcoming hearings page. Where we have written a more comprehensive summary there's a link provided.
Grootboom v National Prosecuting Authority and Another
|
Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
|
CCT 08/13 |
Labour Court, 18 Dec. 2009
Labour Appeal Court, 21 Sep. 2012
|
23 May 2013 |
This matter stems from a decision by the NPA to invoke section 17(5)(a)(i) of the Public Service Act 103 of 1994 ("the Act") to discharge the employment services of Mr Grootboom. In the Constitutional Court, Mr Grootboom seeks an order for that decision to be set aside.
Read our full summary here.
Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another
|
Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
|
CCT 12/2013 |
North Gauteng High Court, 4 Jan. 2013
|
30 May 2013 |
This case comes before the Constitutional Court by way of confirmation proceedings in terms of section 172(2) of the Constitution, following the North Gauteng High Court (“NGHC”) per Rabie J having declared sections of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act 32 of 2007 (“the Act”) to be unconstitutional.
In the NGHC, the applicants challenged the constitutional validity of sections 15 (“Acts of consensual sexual penetration with certain children (statutory rape)”), 16 (“Acts of consensual sexual violation with certain children (statutory sexual assault)”) and 56(2) (dealing with defences in respect of sections 15 and 16 of the Act) (collectively, “the impugned provisions”). The impugned provisions criminalise a wide range of consensual sexual activities involving children aged between 12 and 15 years, including all forms of kissing on the mouth. The applicants did not challenge the impugned provisions insofar as they relate to the sexual conduct of adults; however, to the extent that the impugned provisions criminalise the sexual conduct of children, the applicants argued that they are unconstitutional. This affects the consensual sexual activity of a child aged between 16 and 18 years with a child aged between 12 and 15 years, as well as the consensual sexual activity of two children aged between 12 and 15 years.
Read our full summary here.
For more overviews of upcoming cases go to the upcoming hearings page.
Below are overviews of cases that were most recently heard by the Constitutional Court, but where no judgment has yet been delivered. For overviews of all the cases that have recently been heard, but have not yet had a decision handed down, go to the recent hearings page. Where we have written a more in depth summary a link is provided. We'll update the case information when we know when the decision is due and post the outcome.
Coetzee v National Commissioner of Police and Others
|
Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
|
CCT 124/12 |
North Gauteng High Court, 11 Oct. 2012 Supreme Court of Appeal, 16 Nov. 2012 |
21 May 2013 |
The case involves a challenge to the requirements for a lawful arrest, in circumstances where the appellant, Mr Coetzee, was flagged down by a metro police officer and refused to stop, on the basis, according to Mr Cotzee, that he would drive to the nearest police station. The case also considers whether the North Gauteng High Court was correct in ordering that Mr Coetzee be released from custody on the basis of his unlawful detention.
Read our full summary here.
M&G Media Limited and Others v Chipu NO and Others
|
Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
|
CCT 136/12 |
North Gauteng High Court, 9 Dec 2012
|
14 May 2013 |
In this matter, members of the media have called on the Constitutional Court to determine the constitutionality of section 21(5) of the Refugees Act 130 of 1998. The provision states that ‘the confidentiality of asylum applications and the information contained therein must be ensured at all times’. The media argue that the provision is unconstitutional in so far as it entails a blanket ban on media access to Refugee Appeal Board (RAB) hearings. They argue that the RAB must be vested with a discretion on whether, and on what conditions, to allow media access to an asylum hearing. The state, on the other hand, argues that a blanket ban is necessary to ensure the safety of asylum applicants as well as their family and witnesses.
Read our full summary here.
Disclosure: Webber Wentzel is representing the appellants in this matter. Duncan Wild, Greg Palmer and Ben Winks have been involved in the instruction.
The Governing Body of the Rivonia Primary School v MEC for Education, Gauteng Province
|
Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
|
CCT 135/12 |
South Gauteng High Court, 7 Dec. 2011 Supreme Court of Appeal, 30 Nov. 2012 |
9 May 2013 |
The case concerns whether it is the Provincial Department of Education or the governing body of a public school that has the power to determine the number of learners that the school may admit, and whether the Provincial Department of Education may override any determination in this respect by a governing body.
Read our full summary here.
Mukaddam and Others v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd and Others
|
Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
|
CCT 115/12 |
Western Cape High Court, 7 April 2011 SCA, 29 Nov. 2012 |
7 May 2013 |
The issue is whether the applicants can receive certification from the court in order to bring a class action against the respondents. Two components are before the Constitutional Court: whether the applicants have shown a legally tenable cause of action; and whether there is any alternative method through which the applicants could bring their claim.
Read our full summary here.
Mazibuko v Sisulu and Another
| Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
| CCT 115/12 |
Western Cape High Court, 22 Nov. 2012 | 28 Mar. 2013 |
The Court will have to decide whether section 102(2) of the Constitution provides the minority in the National Assembly with a right to bring a motion of no confidence in the President, and if so whether the Rules of the National Assembly fail to give effect to that right.
Read our summary here.
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others
| Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
| CCT 120/12 |
North Gauteng High Court, 15 Nov. 2012 | 19 Mar. 2013 |
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("NSPCA") brought an application to have sections 2 and 3 of Performing Animals Protection Act 24 of 1935 declared unconstitutional, because the sections grant Magistrates the power to license the "exhibiting and training" of performing animals or guard dogs. The NSPCA says it is an executive function to perform acts such as licensing, and not the judiciary's, and so the sections infringe the principle of separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution and should be set aside. The High Court agreed with the NSPCA and declared the sections unconstitutional. That order is before the Constitutional Court for confirmation.
Mkebe and Another v Absa Bank Limited and Others
| Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
| CCT 107/12 |
North Gauteng High Court, 1 Jun. 2011 | 14 Mar. 2013 |
The Constitutional Court will have to decide whether, in circumstances where a judgment was granted in the absence of the defendant that could allow those defendant's home to be sold, the requirements to allow those defendants to have the judgment set aside (in a rescission application) and defend the claims should be changed or interpreted in favour of the person seeking to have the judgment overturned.
Read our summary here.
Liebenberg NO and Others v Bergrivier Municipality
| Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
| CCT 104/12 |
Western Cape High Court, 25 Aug. 2011 SCA, 1 Oct. 2012 |
12 Mar. 2013 |
Prior to the adoption of the interim Constitution in 1993, rural landowners did not have to pay rates to municipalities. In 1993 the Local Government Transition Act 209 of 1993 was enacted to provide uniformity in local government throughout South Africa, and that every part of a province should fall within the jurisdiction of a local council. Between 2001 and 2009, various farm owners within the Bergrivier Municipality refused to pay municipal rates. Various specific issues were raised regarding different rates imposed in different years during that period, but in essence the Constitutional Court will have to determine whether the Municipality was empowered to impose the rates at the relevant time, and if so whether the Municipality did so within its powers.
S v Nabolisa
| Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
| CCT 105/12 |
KwaZulu-Natal High Court, 4 May 2011 SCA, 1 Oct. 2012 |
7 Mar. 2013 |
Mr Frank Nabolisa was convicted, along with his co-accused Mrs Cheryl Cwele, of dealing in dangerous dependence-producing drugs. He was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment, and on appeal the SCA upheld his conviction and increased his sentence to 20 years.
Mr Nabolisa alleges in his appeal against both his sentence and conviction on the following bases: (1) the High Court and SCA infringed his right to a fair trial by not allowing him to present certain evidence; (2) the High Court and SCA erred in interpreting the Drug Trafficking Act 140 and 1992 to apply to a situation where the drugs in question were not collected nor imported into South Africa (the alleged trafficking happened in Brazil); and (3) the SCA is not empowered to increase a sentence where the State has not appealed the sentence imposed by the High Court.
Head of Department, Department of Education Free State Province v Welkom High School and Another
| Case No. |
Lower Court Judgments |
Hearing Date |
| CCT 103/12 |
Free State High Court, 12 May 2011 SCA, 28 Sep. 2012 |
5 Mar. 2013 |
In this case the Constitutional Court will have to determine whether the Department of Education may order the principal of a public school to readmit learners to that school in circumstances where the school's governing body has adopted a policy which provides for the mandatory exclusion of the learners.
Read our summary here.
For more overviews of cases that were recently heard, go to the recent hearings page.
- Teddy Bear Clinic for Abused Children and Another v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another
- M&G Media Limited and Others v Chipu NO and Others
- Minister of Police and Others v Premier of the Western Cape and Others
- Coetzee v National Commissioner of Police and Others
- Grootboom v National Prosecuting Authority and Another
- The Association of Regional Magistrates of Southern Africa v The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others
- Rademan v Moqhaka Municipality and Others
- Kwazulu-Natal Joint Liason Committee v Member of the Executive Council Department of Education, Kwazulu-Natal and Others
Agri South Africa v Minister of Minerals and Energy - Zimbane Community v King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality and Others; Kwandile Community v King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality and Others
- eThekwini Municipality v Ingonyama Trust
- Hattingh and Others v Juta
- Ngewu and Another v Post Office Retirement Fund and Others
- Pilane and Another v Pilane and Another
- National Director of Public Prosecutions v Elran
- Motswagae and Others v Rustenburg Municipality and Another
This week the Court will hear argument in the cases of Coetzee v National Commissioner of Police and Another on 21 May 2013 and Grootboom v National Prosecuting Authority and Another on 23 May 2013.
Justice Cameron is on leave from 1 February 2013 until 31 May 2013.
Acting Justice Nonkosi Mhlantla has been appointed to the Court for the period 1 February 2013 to 31 May 2013. There is a profile of Acting Justice Mhlantla available on the SCA website here.
Justice van der Westhuizen is on leave for the third term, until 30 September 2013.
Acting Justice Lebotsang Bosielo has been appointed to the Court for the period of Justice van der Westhuizen's absence. There is a profile of Acting Justice Bosielo available on the SCA website here.
MHLANTLA, NONKOSI ZOLISWA.
Personal:
2 May 1964, Port Elizabeth
One child
Education:
Matric: Kenneth Masekela High School, Kwa-Thema, Springs
B Proc (1987) University of the North, Limpopo
Professional History
Attorney, N Mhlantla & Associates: 1990 – 31 May 2002
Acting Judge, Eastern Cape High Court: April 2000 – 30 September 2000
Judge of the High Court, Eastern Cape: 1 June 2002 – 30 November 2008
Acting Judge, Supreme Court of Appeal: 1 June – 30 November 2008
Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of Appeal: 2009
BOSIELO, LEBOTSANG ORPHAN.
Personal:
19 August 1957
Wife: Shirley
Two children
Education:
Matric: Lerothodi High School, Bethanie
B Juris (1981) University of Limpopo, Polokwane
LLB (1983) University of Limpopo, Polokwane
LLM (1992) University of Johannesburg
Diploma in Advanced Corporate Law (1996) University of Johannesburg
Professional History:
Candidate Attorney, Enver Surty Attorneys, Zinniaville: 1984 – 1986
Admitted as an Attorney: 1986
Partner at Bosielo, Motlanthe & Lekabe: 1987 – 1992
Senior Partner, Ronnie Bosielo Attorneys: 1992 – 1998
Admitted as an Advocate: 1998
Practising Advocate: 1999 – 2001
Judge of the High Court of South Africa, North Gauteng High Court: 2001 – 2009
Acting Judge of the High Court, Namibia: 2001
Acting Judge President, Northern Cape High Court: 2007 – 2008
Acting Judge, Supreme Court of Appeal: 2009
Judge of Appeal, Supreme Court of Appeal: 2009
Click here for a more comprehensive calendar of events at the Constitutional Court.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 South Africa License.
