S v Manamela and Another (CCT 25/99) [2000] ZACC 5 (14 April 2000)

Rule of law — judicial integrity — vindicating the honour of courts

Contempt of court — urgent application — direct access — duty to comply with court orders — first respondent is in contempt of court

Appropriate sanction for crime of civil contempt — punitive sanction — unsuspended committal — punitive costs

Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 (DMA) – decisions and regulations
made during state of national disaster under the DMA – policy decisions of the National
Coronavirus Command Council, a cabinet committee comprising of the entire cabinet,
not justiciable because they had no legal effect – regulations made in terms of the
DMA (the level 4 regulations) made in a procedurally fair manner, alternatively in a
rational decision-making process – Minister of Co-operative Governance and
Traditional Affairs applied her mind to representations received from members of the
public – with two exceptions, the level 4 regulations found to be reasonable and
justifiable limitations of fundamental rights – reg 16(2)(f), which permitted only limited
forms of exercise during the level 4 lockdown, and items 1 and 2 of Part E of Table 1,
read with reg 28(3), which prohibited the over-the-counter sale of hot food, declared
to be invalid to the extent of their conflict with the Constitution – challenge to directions
made by the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition moot.